It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How do Christians justify their taking the mark of the beast already?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:03 AM
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Or the wrong criminals. Our gubment destroys whole nations, how criminal is that?

Gotta keep the proles in line.

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:08 AM
Oooooo, you are interesting.
How can that change?
I mean, what can happen with a reset? Rv's and dv's. It would have to be a full move into another fiat currency or a full move into an asset backed system.
Either way in the dialectic they created takes us there. Just a matter of which faction.
A crypto currency is just another level of fiat it seems eventually controlled by AI, if not allready like what is being discussed. To me what seems to be happening is the death of the petro dollar and everyone divesting from it into either euro or usd. But now bitcoin is my guess. I'm old enough to have seen the pyramid schemes erupt 3 times in my lifetime. That was before the i ternet. They were all run mostly from peoples living rooms in suburbs and urban neighborhoods. Once a generation thing. But they are gone since the internet. Or are they actually gone?
From my weirdo viewpoint, bitcoin and a pyramid scheme are just the same in this respect...
Where is the strategy to play?
Both have the same strategy. Play as much and as often as you can!!!
And the only other rule? Cash out just before it gets bust/ed because only those few at the top win, everyone else loses.

. a reply to: St Udio

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:29 AM

originally posted by: Malevotronic
The mark of the beast is that which allows someone to buy, sell, or trade goods or services or other monies. All Christians have credit cards, debit cards, checks, and certainly cash on hand.

They can say that it's not the antichrist's system. But it IS.

This IS the problem with religion. We have all different kinds of people arrogantly claiming beliefs that have nothing to do with Truth. Some people gain followers and spread their false accusations, some write threads on this site and are never seen. However everyone has their opinion that contradicts others or just adds a new train of thought for people to become lost with. They take scriptures from an already corrupt document and make theories based on trying to convey hidden meanings within the text. I know this was a technique by the ancient sages but it needs to stop, mainly because 1,000s of people continue to do it and act like they are like the ancient Hebrews but they are not, they are just arrogant stubborn ignorant people attempting to receive attention by sharing their thoughts. Why don't we first resolve the corruption in the religion before we try and do a pesher to the text? The book that this mark even is cited from is a corrupt forged document created by evil Jews or Roman people and is nothing like the original Hebrew document. Why don't people want to understand that evil powerful people took the so called "Word of God" and manipulated it to mislead thousands of generations into the future. They really think that scripture is somehow untouchable? That God would not let evil people in some way from forging it? That Is Not Reality. They DID corrupt it. They DID forge it. It is just so incredibly stubborn and ignorant for people to believe that the bible could not have been corrupted, because it was!

posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 05:21 AM
The mark of the beast is 'identification'.
If you take on a name or if you name things then that is 'identification' - it is separating out - it is fragmenting.
The whole is holy.
Dividing the whole is actually impossible but naming makes it seem as if there are separate things - and when there are separate things then there is conflict.

Is there really anything separate? Is there really any 'thing'?

Look closely now.

Words appear now - can any word appear outside the seeing of it. So 'seeing' is primary. Is there really 'someone' seeing or is there just 'seeing'?

Do not identify yourself as the seer.

edit on 16-12-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2020 @ 02:01 PM

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: Malevotronic

The mark will be on the forehead or hand. You will have to worship Satan and denounce god when you get the mark. Creditcards cash none of these require such as yet.

Will it?

Or will it be a mandated......something.....a trojan horse of sorts.....and one will be checked before entering stores, airports, in perhaps a thermal imaging scanner.

posted on Jun, 17 2020 @ 02:29 AM
It is too easy to say it is the implanted microchip. in fact that tech is already outdated, the smarphone is much better.

Who wrote it? I mean the Revelation. It is written after 170 AD the first papirii of the chapters 1,2. (as all other Gospel books, they are NOT written at the time of Jesus or the apostles)

The book of Revelation has additional problem: its style of writing is completely different from the gospel of John and the three letters of John. On contrary, the Acts and the gospel of Luke have the same style that make us conclude that Luke wrote the Acts. John the writer of the Revelation is not necessarily John the apostle one of 12.

Pope Benedict on the 3rd week after his election had a sermon on the Revelation during his weekly public audiences, and he clearly indicated that uncertainty about its authorship.

Apart of that, the number of the beast is not clear whether it is 666 or 616 as in early version.

And for me the most important is that:

Jesus never mentioned the mark of the beast in the words He directly said, i.e. recorded in the gospels as direct words while he walked on earth (recorded again later in 2nd century, anyway). Why should he omit such an important thing, if the mark has the power to send directly to hell, to the lake of fire?

Jesus also doesn't mention THE Antichrist, except for a vague reference to Daniel's abomination of desolation "whoever reads let him understand" (that needs interpretation and often those interpretations differ between). Jesus speaks of "many false prophets and false messiahs" who would claim that "I am the messiah" (incorrect later translations say "false Christs", "I am He", or "I am Christ". Notice the word "Christ" that substitutes the original "Messiah" is Greek and didn't appear until the Christianity took roots in Greece. But in fact all gospels except for Matthew are written in Greek. Still, I am suspicious of all the amount of Greek early christian terminology put in the mouth of Jesus, words that most likely He didn't pronounce in Greek.

(Including of the so much used phrase "And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:27 - this is NOT the way the Jews talked at the time of Peter, certainly NOT before Jesus' crucifixion. The Cross was NOT venerated yet, on contrary, the apostles were afraid to even ASK Jesus when he talked of His crucifixion. How then he allegedly "told" them to carry "their own crosses" when the word cross did not mean the daily sufferings in life? This is early Christian ideology put back in the gospels to justify it. It further contradicts the entire idea that Jesus died for our sins once and for all, if we all must carry our own crosses everyday until we die!?!)

I wonder, will the son of God leave so many uncertainties as of the single most important evil event and evil personage at the end times who would send to hell God's elect ones if they just take a mark of some kind, or just bow down before an image that speaks (TV, computer)? Isn't it too much severity to assume that for Jesus who died for all of us on the cross? How could he judge anyone for taking the mark if he never said it directly? The revelation of John is after all only a vision that someone on Patmos decided it comes from God, all in images and symbols for events to come 1900 years later at earliest. And we are not even sure who that person called John actually was.

Yes the church fathers canonized the book, much later in 5th century after heated debates, and not together with the other canonized books. (while leaving behind a good number of other books including other apocalypses).

But if that central question of the antichrist is unsure, then everything else in the Revelation should be taken with a grain of salt too. That could mean, among other things, that even if principally true canonical book, a more symbolic fulfillment should be sought. Including one that happens in our days without the literal marking, chipping etc. In other words, we may reach the end of history on earth with symbolic images and characters playing the main roles of the book. Indeed, if we easily accept the idea of unseen angels flying around, then we should accept that the beast etc negative personages are also unseen.

Symbolic fulfillment but not annulment, because it must be fulfilled if it is written and approved as a word of God, regardless of everything else said and unsaid about the book. It even bears an open threat against anyone who would try to change it. No other part of the NT bears such threat. In all, the book differs very much from the entire NT and bears striking similarities to OT prophets (Ezekiel as of the description of the cherubs and the new Jerusalem. John's Jerusalem however differs with its giant space dimensions - I already talked of that in my thread).
edit on 17-6-2020 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2020 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2020 @ 08:06 PM

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Malevotronic

No, the mark of the beast, is a mark that you have to take, proving your support, and loyalty to the beast, with out it you can not buy or sell.....without the mark, your accounts would be frozen.

im looking forward to not being here in that time that's coming.

People will probably blame it on "aliens" when Jesus takes his people...that's when all hell breaks loose,love ones will be missing.
children missing over the whole world.
stores will run out of toilet paper,no food on the shelves.

The anti Christ wont have horns he will be calling for love & peace....everything's going to be alright calm down....NWO

Then in the end of the end ..The ones that are left will take the mark or starve or be decapitated which ever comes first.
edit on 27-6-2020 by madenusa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2020 @ 08:19 PM
a reply to: Malevotronic

It is supposed to be a mark in your hand. Not an object in your hand.

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:45 AM
In his inspired Word, God provides the needed clues with regard to the mark of the wild beast of Revelation chapter 13. Naturally, to understand those clues, we need to identify the beast itself and learn about its activities.

The Bible book of Daniel sheds much light on the meaning of symbolic beasts. Chapter 7 contains a vivid tableau of “four huge beasts”​—a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a fearsome beast with big teeth of iron. (Daniel 7:2-7) Daniel tells us that these beasts represent “kings,” or political kingdoms, that rule in succession over vast empires.​—Daniel 7:17, 23.

Regarding the beast of Revelation 13:1, 2, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible points out that it “combines in itself the joint characteristics of the four beasts of Daniel’s vision . . . Accordingly, this first beast [of Revelation] represents the combined forces of all political rule opposed to God in the world.” This observation is affirmed by Revelation 13:7, which says of the beast: “Authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.”

Why does the Bible use beasts as symbols of human rulership? For at least two reasons. First, because of the beastly record of bloodshed that governments have accrued over the centuries. “War is one of the constants of history,” wrote historians Will and Ariel Durant, “and has not diminished with civilization or democracy.” How true that “man has dominated man to his injury”! (Ecclesiastes 8:9) The second reason is that “the dragon [Satan] gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Revelation 12:9; 13:2) Accordingly, human rulership is a product of the Devil, thus reflecting his beastly, dragonlike disposition.​—John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12.

Now that we have identified the beast, we are in a position to determin what the mark of the beast is. Those having the mark of the beast proclaim their servitude to the beast. Thus, the mark, whether on the right hand or on the forehead, figuratively speaking, is a symbol that identifies its bearer as one who gives worshipful support to the beastlike political systems of the world. Those having the mark give to “Caesar” that which rightly belongs to God. (Luke 20:25; Revelation 13:4, 8; 14:1) How? By giving worshipful honor to the political state, its symbols, and its military might, to which they look for hope and salvation. Any worship that they render the true God is merely lip service.

In contrast, the Bible urges us: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (Psalm 146:3, 4) Those who heed that wise counsel are not disillusioned when governments fail to deliver on their promises or when charismatic leaders fall from grace.​—Proverbs 1:33.

This does not mean that true Christians sit back and do nothing about mankind’s plight. On the contrary, they actively proclaim the one government that will solve mankind’s problems​—God’s Kingdom, which they represent.​—Matthew 24:14.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” [Lit., “we are not doing military service.” Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”—2 CORINTHIANS 10:3-5

In the years immediately following World War II, most church leaders tried to ignore that the Holocaust terrors had been perpetrated by professed Christians. However, the implications of this disturbing fact were not lost upon the Jewish people.

Elie Wiesel says in his book A Jew Today: “How is one to explain that neither Hitler nor Himmler was ever excommunicated by the church? That Pius XII never thought it necessary, not to say indispensable, to condemn Auschwitz and Treblinka? That among the S.S. a large proportion were believers who remained faithful to their Christian ties to the end? That there were killers who went to confession between massacres? And that they all came from Christian families and had received a Christian education?”

In 1993, Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University spoke at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum about a troublesome “concrete truth.” What was that?

The truth, Littell said, was that “six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated.”

Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic, as were many of the leaders in his government. Why weren’t they excommunicated? Why didn’t the Catholic Church condemn the horrors that these men were committing? Why did Protestant churches also keep silent?

Did the churches really remain silent? Is there proof that they supported Hitler’s war efforts?

Catholic historian E. I. Watkin wrote: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. . . . Where belligerent nationalism is concerned they have spoken as the mouthpiece of Caesar.”

When Watkin said that bishops of the Catholic Church “supported all wars waged by the government of their country,” he included the wars of aggression waged by Hitler. As Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Friedrich Heer, admitted: “In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.”

Catholic Church leaders gave such unqualified support to Hitler’s wars that the Roman Catholic professor Gordon Zahn wrote: “The German Catholic who looked to his religious superiors for spiritual guidance and direction regarding service in Hitler’s wars received virtually the same answers he would have received from the Nazi ruler himself.”

That Catholics obediently followed the direction of their church leaders was documented by Professor Heer. He noted: “Of about thirty-two million German Catholics—fifteen and a half million of whom were men—only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians.” More recent evidence indicates that a few other Catholics, as well as some Protestants, stood up against the Nazi State because of religious convictions. Some even paid with their lives, while at the same time their spiritual leaders were selling out to the Third Reich.

As noted above, Professor Heer included Protestant leaders among those who “welcomed the alliance with Hitler.” Is that true?

Many Protestants have writhed in self-incrimination for remaining silent during Hitler’s wars of aggression. For example, 11 leading clergymen met in October 1945 to draw up the so-called Stuttgart admission of guilt. They said: “We accuse ourselves for not having been more courageous in confessing our convictions, more faithful in saying our prayers, more joyful in expressing our faith, and more ardent in showing our love.”

Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity said: “Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time.” Contrasting such pastors with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Johnson wrote: “The bravest were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state.”

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:46 AM
Back in 1939, the year World War II began, Consolation quoted T. Bruppacher, a Protestant minister, as saying: “While men who call themselves Christians have failed in the decisive tests, these unknown witnesses of Jehovah, as Christian martyrs, are maintaining unshakable opposition against coercion of conscience and heathen idolatry. The future historian must some day acknowledge that not the great churches, but these slandered and scoffed-at people, were the ones who stood up first against the rage of the Nazi demon . . . They refuse the worship of Hitler and the Swastika.”

Similarly, Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant church leader who himself had been in a Nazi concentration camp, later confessed: ‘It may be truthfully recalled that Christian churches, throughout the ages, have always consented to bless war, troops, and arms and that they prayed in a very unchristian way for the annihilation of their enemy.’ He admitted: “All this is our fault and our fathers’ fault, but obviously not God’s fault.”

Niemoeller then added: “And to think that we Christians of today are ashamed of the so-called sect of the serious scholars of the Bible [Jehovah’s Witnesses], who by the hundreds and thousands have gone into concentration camps and died because they refused to serve in war and declined to fire on human beings.”

Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals.

As a lecturer, Heschel is frequently asked by church members, “What could we have done?”

“You could have been like Jehovah’s Witnesses,” she replies.

The reason the churches were silent becomes clear. It is because Christendom’s clergy and their flocks had abandoned the teachings of the Bible in favor of supporting the political state. In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Roman Catholic cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing. . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”

Indeed, the Catholic Church and other churches as well became handmaidens of the evil Hitler government. Even though Jesus Christ said his true followers “are no part of the world,” the churches and their parishioners became an integral part of Hitler’s world. (John 17:16) As a result, they failed to speak out about the horrors against humanity that were committed by the Nazis in their death camps.

True, a few courageous individuals from the Catholic, Protestant, and various other religions stood up against the Nazi State. But even as some of them paid with their lives, their spiritual leaders, who claimed to serve God, were serving as puppets of the Third Reich.

You won't hear any of that on the History and Discovery Channels when they are broadcasting a documentary about World War II.
edit on 5-7-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:59 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
...The second reason is that “the dragon [Satan] gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Revelation 12:9; 13:2) Accordingly, human rulership is a product of the Devil, thus reflecting his beastly, dragonlike disposition.​—John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12.

The specter of communism/red dragon/CCP. Those who made their bed with the CCP...infiltrated nearly all commerce etc. Food for thought.

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 09:54 PM
a reply to: Halfswede

Nationalism and patriotism have been useful tools in communist lands as they have been in Western democratic nations. One dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.” A former UN secretary-general wrote: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes​—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously. Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

The Unchanging Curse of Nationalism

As Communism began to disintegrate, U.S. president Bush popularized the concept of “a new world order.” However, as many political leaders have discovered, smart slogans are cheap; positive changes are much more difficult to accomplish. In his book After the Fall​—The Pursuit of Democracy in Central Europe, Jeffrey Goldfarb says: “Boundless hope about ‘a new world order’ has been followed quickly by the realization that the most ancient of problems are still with us, and sometimes with a vengeance. The euphoria of liberation . . . has often been overshadowed by despair over political tension, nationalist conflict, religious fundamentalism, and economic breakdown.” Certainly the civil war in what was Yugoslavia is a clear example of the divisive influence of politics, religion, and nationalism.

Goldfarb continues: “Xenophobia [fear of foreigners] and personal insecurity have become Central European facts of life. Democracy does not automatically deliver the economic, political, and cultural goods, and a market economy does not only promise riches, it also creates unfathomable problems for those who don’t know how to work in it.”

But it is evident that these are not problems of Central Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union only; xenophobia and economic insecurity are worldwide. The human family pays the price in suffering and death. And the immediate future holds no hope of change in these deeply entrenched attitudes that generate hatred and violence. Why is that? Because the education most receive​—whether from parents or from nationalistically oriented school systems—​inculcates hatred, intolerance, and notions of superiority based on nationality, ethnic and tribal origin, or language.

Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

We are reminded of what Albert Einstein once said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

Source: Our Changing World—Where Is It Headed? (Awake!—1993)

The wild beast with seven heads and ten horns that comes out of the sea (Revelation 13:​1, 17, 18) is a symbol of the worldwide political system, which rules over “every tribe and people and tongue and nation.” (Revelation 13:7) The Bible says that people receive “the mark of the wild beast” because they follow it “with admiration,” to the point of worshipping it. (Revelation 13:​3, 4; 16:2) They do this by giving worshipful honor to their country, its symbols, or its military might. As The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “Nationalism has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world.” (See also Nationalism in a Global Era, page 134, and Nationalism and the Mind: Essays on Modern Culture, page 94.)

Nationalism, Patriotism and the Mark of the Beast

In our age, “nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag,” wrote historian Carlton Hayes. “Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” Nationalism, he added, also has its “holy days,” such as the Fourth of July in the United States, as well as its “saints and heroes” and its “temples,” or shrines. (What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.) In a public ceremony in Brazil, the minister general of the army acknowledged: “The flag is venerated and worshiped . . . just as the Fatherland is worshiped.” Yes, “the flag, like the cross, is sacred,” The Encyclopedia Americana once observed.*

The aforementioned encyclopedia more recently noted that national anthems “are expressions of patriotic feeling and often include an invocation for divine guidance and protection of the people or their rulers.” The book The American Character stated: “That these daily rituals are religious has been at last affirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases.”

*: “The flag, like the cross, is sacred. . . . The rules and regulations relative to human attitude toward national standards use strong, expressive words, as, ‘Service to the Flag,’ . . . ‘Reverence for the Flag,’ ‘Devotion to the Flag.’”​—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Volume 11, page 316.

In 1979, the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America” observed:

“Twenty-five years ago this June, Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.
edit on 5-7-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 09:55 PM

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Halfswede

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

Nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

On this subject an amusing story is told about an army chaplain in Scotland who, at a new military camp, asked for volunteers to convert an old barn into a chapel. In the absence of the chaplain the volunteers painted in large letters above the altar: “Scotland forever and ever.” The surprised chaplain asked them to make the sign a bit more religious. They did. The inscription then read: “Scotland forever and ever. AMEN.”

Scotsmen are known for being very proud of their country. But they are not alone in this. For example, English children, especially in the days when the British Empire was dominant in the world, were fed nationalistic fervor from earliest childhood. They were taught to believe that ‘Britannia Rules the Waves,’ and that the English are a superior nation, blessed by God.

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

In a flurry of published information celebrating Albert Einstein’s centennial around 1979, news columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote. He called nationalism ‘an infantile disease . . . the measles of the human race.’”

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist's expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

AMEN! I'd say. Patriotism and nationalism also relates to prejudice, discrimination, racism, inordinate pride, selfishness, propaganda and a couple of other subjects that I'm not going to get into now because my comment is already so long. But I have discussed it before in this thread about Nationalism.

After the initial comment linked above, I commented on pages 8,14,15. Some of these comments link to other comments of mine about the subjects above.

And of course, there is this thread that I commented in (actually most of what I said in these 2 comments was taken from my last comment in that thread):

What if: The mark of the beast is not a actual mark..?
edit on 5-7-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 11:50 PM

originally posted by: whereislogic
The reason the churches were silent becomes clear. It is because Christendom’s clergy and their flocks had abandoned the teachings of the Bible in favor of supporting the political state. In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Roman Catholic cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing. . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”

Indeed, the Catholic Church and other churches as well became handmaidens of the evil Hitler government. Even though Jesus Christ said his true followers “are no part of the world,” the churches and their parishioners became an integral part of Hitler’s world. (John 17:16) As a result, they failed to speak out about the horrors against humanity that were committed by the Nazis in their death camps.

True, a few courageous individuals from the Catholic, Protestant, and various other religions stood up against the Nazi State. But even as some of them paid with their lives, their spiritual leaders, who claimed to serve God, were serving as puppets of the Third Reich.

By the time Nazi Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, the Soviets had practically annihilated the Russian Orthodox Church. But after the Nazi invasion, the Soviets began to change their attitude toward religion. What prompted this?

Richard Overy, professor of modern history at King’s College, London, explained in his book Russia’s War—Blood Upon the Snow: “Metropolitan Sergei [Sergius], head of the Church, appealed to the faithful on the very day of the German invasion to do everything to bring about victory. He published no fewer than twenty-three epistles in the next two years, calling on his flock to fight for the godless state they lived in.” So, as Overy continued, ‘Stalin allowed religion to flourish again.’

In 1943, Stalin finally agreed to recognize the Orthodox Church by appointing Sergius as its new patriarch. “The Church authorities responded by raising money from the faithful to fund a Soviet armored column,” Overy noted. “Priests and bishops exhorted their congregations to observe the faith, God’s and Stalin’s.”

Describing this period of Russian history, the Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko wrote: ‘The official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church, The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, praised Stalin as the greatest leader and teacher of all times and nations, sent by God to save the nation from oppression, landowners, and capitalists. It called upon believers to give their last drop of blood in defending the USSR from its enemies and to give their all to build Communism.’

“Highly Valued by the KGB”

Even after World War II ended in 1945, the Orthodox Church remained useful to the Communists. The Soviet Union: The Fifty Years, edited by Harrison Salisbury, revealed how this was so: “With the war’s end, church leaders fell in with the Cold War demands of Stalin’s foreign policy.”

The recent book The Sword and the Shield describes how church leaders served Soviet interests. It explains that Patriarch Alexis I, who had succeeded Sergius as patriarch in 1945, “joined the World Peace Council, the Soviet front organization founded in 1949.” The book also notes that he and Metropolitan Nikolai “were highly valued by the KGB [the Soviet State Security Committee] as agents of influence.”

Remarkably, in 1955, Patriarch Alexis I declared: “The Russian Orthodox Church supports the totally peaceful foreign policy of our government, not because the Church allegedly lacks freedom, but because Soviet policy is just and corresponds to the Christian ideals which the Church preaches.”

In the January 22, 2000, issue of The Guardian of London, England, dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein is quoted as saying: “All the bishops were carefully picked so that they would work with the soviet government. All were KGB agents. It is well known that Patriarch Alexy was recruited by the KGB, under the code-name of Drozdov. Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”

A Handmaiden of the Soviet State

Regarding the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Soviets, Life magazine of September 14, 1959, observed: “Stalin gave some concessions to religion, and the church treated him like a czar. Orthodoxy’s collaboration is ensured by a special government ministry and the Communists have utilized the church ever since as an arm of the Soviet state.”

Matthew Spinka, an authority on Russian church affairs, confirmed the existence of a close Church-State relationship in his 1956 book, The Church in Soviet Russia. “The present Patriarch Alexei,” he wrote, “has deliberately made his Church a tool of the government.” Indeed, the Orthodox Church, in effect, survived by becoming a handmaiden of the State. ‘But is that so reprehensible?’ you may ask. Well, consider how God and Christ view the matter.

Jesus Christ said of his true disciples: “You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” And God’s Word pointedly asks: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (John 15:19; James 4:4) Thus, as the Bible presents it, the church made itself a religious harlot with whom “the kings of the earth committed fornication.” It has shown itself to be part of what the Bible calls “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.”—Revelation 17:1-6.

False Religion is a Snare and a Racket
The End of False Religion (Babylon the Great) Is near!

In contrast, Jesus Christ revealed how his true followers would be known, saying: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) This love was a key factor in the survival of the Witnesses in the former Soviet Union, as indicated by the following report in The Sword and the Shield. “Jehovists extend assistance of all kind to their co-religionists who are in the [labor] camps or in internal exile, supplying them with money, food and clothing.”

Included in the “food” provided for those in prison camps was that of a spiritual kind—Bibles and Bible literature. The Bible contains ‘utterances of God,’ which Jesus said we need in order to sustain our spiritual lives. (Matthew 4:4) The literature was smuggled into the camps at great personal risk, since anyone found doing this was severely punished. Surely, risking personal freedom and safety to provide spiritual help was an evidence of Christian love.

Church Collaboration With the Soviets

In his 1945 book, Russia Is No Riddle, Edmund Stevens wrote: “The Church took great care not to bite the hand that was now feeding it. It fully realized that in return for the favors bestowed the State expected the Church to give its firm support to the system and to operate within certain limits.”

Stevens went on to explain: “The tradition of centuries as the official State religion was deeply rooted in the Orthodox Church, and it therefore slipped very naturally into its new role of close collaboration with the Soviet Government.”

The Keston Institute thoroughly researched the past collaboration between the Soviets and Alexis II, today’s patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Its report concluded: “Aleksi’s collaboration was nothing exceptional—almost all senior leaders of all officially-recognised religious faiths—including the Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, Muslims and Buddhists—were recruited KGB agents. Indeed, the annual report that describes Aleksi’s recruitment also covers numerous other agents, some of them in the Estonian Lutheran Church.”

posted on Jul, 6 2020 @ 01:11 AM
a reply to: Malevotronic

We all use barcodes already.
That's my pick for the mark of the beast.

And why do I allow the devil to take part in my transactions?

Ease and convenience.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in