It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

I saw a Man with a Tat on His Big Fat Belly it Wiggled Around Like Marmalade Jelly

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Well put, the truth in your post overflows all over the table....pure truth there

My running buddy Jim....the Catholics told him in classes.......

That an unbaptised infant.....the best he can do is purgatory?.......I wanna go to the....I better stop




posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I wish the C aths would stop having the good faithful believers lining the freak up to kiss that dudes ring

And kiss the toe of the statue that originally was a heathen God, but now yeah oh....now it's the statue of St Peter

Will someone tell me how this gets to just go on........we're told about bowing to anything but God....and we were given the ten of them written by the finger of God in granite.....not to worship idols that means do not kiss a statue for the normals.

That commandment is guess the hail what....farriggin missing from the ten....only with one group of religion....any guesses on which farriggin one

I'm gonna go put that on a billboard on LBJ freeway in farriggin Dallas.....dare me....






edit on 14-10-2018 by GBP/JPY because: IN THE FINE TEXAS TRADITION



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I disagree.

Where is Peter's church if not the Catholic Church?

Remember... Jesus told Peter that he will build a church upon him and all that he commanded would be, that is, all that which proceeded from him. This is the foundation of the Catholic Church. Basically giving this church the right to police itself. It's written right there in Matthew.

What is christianity? Truely?

Are Mormons Christian?

Are Pentecostals Christian?

Are Baptist Christian?

Can only one religion be Christian? If so, which one?

Still.... What is Christian?
edit on 14-10-2018 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
a reply to: StallionDuck

Do you suppose it's true I heard Enoch used to be in the KJV.?

I'm curious bout that!!


Im not sure. Some say yes and some say no. Some think it's a hoax. Personally, I see a lot of evidence that the book of Enoc is part of those books that he is noted to write among the many written. Wow, that was hard. I don't know if that even sounded right. lol The OT says he wrote a lot of books. I believe that is one of them.

So I'd say yes but that's just a personal opinion. I really don't know.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
I disagree.

Where is Peter's church if not the Catholic Church?

Remember... Jesus told Peter that he will build a church upon him and all that he commanded would be, that is, all that which proceeded from him. This is the foundation of the Catholic Church. Basically giving this church the right to police itself. It's written right there in Matthew.

What is christianity? Truely?

Are Mormons Christian?

Are Pentecostals Christian?

Are Baptist Christian?

Can only one religion be Christian? If so, which one?

Still.... What is Christian?


Though I am not creedal, the Nicene Creed is a very good place to start
And exestentialy living out the Sermon on the Mount
Not much more

I dont think the denomination a person belongs to matters much



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinocchio


Sad thing is ... I absolutely believe the hell fire lake story.


Easy, reject religion altogether as Jesus taught
Embrace Jesus, treat others fairly with love and compassion...as best you can



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY
At least on occasion their theologians are more honest in their acknowledgements in the fineprint than some others I have observed:

Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

What is the origin of the myth?

“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”​—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.


The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
...
Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

...
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Source: Trinity: Reasoning From the Scriptures

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea

...
THE Bible was completed in the first century C.E. Teachings that led to the development of the Trinity began to be officially formulated in 325 C.E.​—more than two centuries later—​at a council in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor, now Iznik, Turkey. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea set out the first official definition of ‘Christian orthodoxy,’ including the definition of God and Christ. Why, though, was it deemed necessary to define God and Christ centuries after the Bible was completed? Is the Bible unclear on these important topics?
...
He [Constantine] then proposed that the council adopt the ambiguous notion that Jesus was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father. This unbiblical Greek philosophical term laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine as later set forth in the church creeds. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Trinity had essentially taken the form it has today, including the so-called third part of the godhead, the holy spirit.
...
What the Nicene Creed says:

“We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.”

What the Bible says:

“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”​—John 14:28.* [Italics ours. All the quotations in this section are from the King James Version.]

“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”​—John 20:17.

“To us there is but one God, the Father.”​—1 Corinthians 8:6.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”​—1 Peter 1:3.

“These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”​—Revelation 3:14.*

QUICK FACTS:

“The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),” says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History.

“The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”​—Library of Early Christianity—​Gods and the One God.

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”​—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Source: Should You Believe in the Trinity? Awake!—2013

The Council of Constantinople

In 381 C.E., the Council of Constantinople affirmed the Nicene Creed. And it added something else. It called the holy spirit “Lord” and “life-giver.” The expanded creed of 381 C.E. (which is substantially what is used in the churches today and which is called “the Nicene Creed”) shows that Christendom was on the brink of formulating a full-blown Trinitarian dogma. Yet, not even this council completed that doctrine. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:

“It is interesting that 60 years after Nicaea I the Council of Constantinople I [381 C.E.] avoided homoousios in its definition of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.”⁠11

“Scholars have been puzzled by the apparent mildness of expression on the part of this creed; its failure, for example, to use the word homoousios of the Holy Spirit as consubstantial with the Father and Son.”⁠12

That same encyclopedia admits: “Homoousios does not appear in Scripture.”⁠13 No, the Bible does not use that word either for the holy spirit or for the Son as being consubstantial with God. It was an unbiblical expression that helped lead to the unbiblical, indeed, antibiblical, doctrine of the Trinity.

Even after Constantinople, it was centuries before the Trinity teaching was accepted throughout Christendom. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “In the West . . . a general silence seems to have prevailed with regard to Constantinople I and its creed.”⁠14 This source shows that the council’s creed was not widely recognized in the West until the seventh or eighth century.

Scholars also acknowledge that the Athanasian Creed, often quoted as a standard definition and support of the Trinity, was not written by Athanasius but by an unknown author much later. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments:

“The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”⁠15

Source: Part 4—When and How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? (1992)
edit on 16-10-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
Still.... What is Christian?

2 Corinthians 10:3

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* according to what we are in the flesh.

*: “We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.”; Lat., non . . . mi·li·taʹmus.

Of course, there is a bit more to it:

In contrast to for example:



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Ive been pondering this:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* according to what we are in the flesh.


Basically saying that even though we exist as humans, we do not fight in the way of humans.


It's a very confusing sentence. What is the way of the flesh if not greed and jealousy?

Shed some light for me if you can.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY
never mind
edit on 16-10-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck
Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (CX): “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,​—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254) In his treatise “The Chaplet, or De Corona” (XI), when discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) argued from Scripture the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100.

Early Christians celebrated no state holidays and refused all military service. “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”​—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416. In the modern-day US, that would be the equivalent of soldiers, senators and presidents, for example (or governors, mayors, etc.).

Regarding the early Christians and military service, German theologian Peter Meinhold said: “Being a Christian and a soldier was considered irreconcilable.” In his essay “An Inquiry Into the Accordancy of War With the Principles of Christianity,” religion writer Jonathan Dymond wrote that for some time after the death of Jesus, His followers “refused to engage in [war]; whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.” Dymond added: “These facts are indisputable.” Only when “Christianity became corrupted,” said another writer, did Christians become soldiers.

What is legally called "conscientious objection" (refusing military service) demonstrates true love of both 'neighbor' and enemy (Matthew 5:43-45). Not blessing soldiers, armies and weapons, or teaching that military service is compatible with Christianity.

Regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.” An article in the Reformierte Presse states that a report by African Rights, a human rights organization, on the 1994 Rwandan genocide established the participation of all churches, “with the exception of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Source: “No Part of the World”

As a prisoner of war, he had seen widows weeping for their fatherless children, and he had observed Catholic priests blessing Bolivian soldiers.

Source: Paraguay (Yearbook 1998)

The declaration of war by nation against nation; the tramping of millions of men marching to war; the total mobilization of nations for all-out war; the clanking of heavy mechanized firing equipment lumbering off to the front; the pious voices of priests and preachers of all denominations on both sides of the battle lines praying God’s blessing upon the soldiers on their side face to face with soldiers of the same religious faith on the enemy side; the religious chaplains acting as cheerleaders to the fighters; the contagion of war spreading, with already nine nations and globe encircling empires locked in war by October 1, 1914.

Source: What Has God’s Kingdom Been Doing Since 1914?

True Worshippers Recognized by Their Fruits

Regarding true and false worshippers, Jesus Christ told his followers: “Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.” Accordingly, true worshippers would be recognized by their fruits, or works. What are these fruits?​—Matthew 7:16-20.

First, true worship unites believers in love. Jesus explained to his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” True followers of Christ must display love for one another that is so outstanding as to characterize them as true worshippers in the eyes of observers.​—John 13:34, 35.

For this reason it would be unthinkable for true Christians to take up arms against one another in war. Do church members keep to this standard? In World War II, the only major religious group that consistently and steadfastly refused to support the war effort in any way were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Dr. Hanns Lilje, former bishop of the Protestant Church in Hannover, Germany, wrote about the Witnesses: “They can rightfully claim to be the only major conscientious objectors in the Third Reich.” During that conflict, Witnesses in many lands chose to suffer reprisals rather than to promote or support the war.
...
[Picture on page 14]

Orthodox priest blessing new troops in Ukraine in 2004

Source: Do All Religions Lead to the Same God?

Does God Approve of Warfare? Awake!—2002
Song 141 Searching for Friends of Peace (with lyrics)
edit on 16-10-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

They refused to serve because they followed

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Joining their army would not allow you to practice this verse. I follow it. And its not bad to join the military today as long as you don't have to go to war then you aren't following Roms 12:18.

But if you come into my home or on my property and start to hurt me or my family or anyone on my property I will shot you so fast it would make your head pop off. Because at that point there is no way on my part to just be peaceable as I am forced to defend myself or others.

Now you noticed I didn't quote any so called Christian writers or theologians because there is not need to I have a Bible that gives me instruction. I come to those conclusions by being very familiar with my Bible and not by the doctrines of men.


edit on 16-10-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Thank you. I understand now. So basically it's referring to the actions of Christians and not people in general.

Thanks again!



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

They refused to serve because they followed

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Joining their army would not allow you to practice this verse. I follow it. And its not bad to join the military today as long as you don't have to go to war then you aren't following Roms 12:18.

But if you come into my home or on my property and start to hurt me or my family or anyone on my property I will shot you so fast it would make your head pop off. Because at that point there is no way on my part to just be peaceable as I am forced to defend myself or others.

Now you noticed I didn't quote any so called Christian writers or theologians because there is not need to I have a Bible that gives me instruction. I come to those conclusions by being very familiar with my Bible and not by the doctrines of men.



Makes sense. Isn't it written that Jesus told his disciples to take up swords, most likely to protect themselves?


“if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”


In a way it's sort of contradictory.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck
continued from last comment:

Can messengers of peace be found, then, among the religions of this ailing world? Well, what is religion’s record to date? History shows that religion has shared in, yes, has even been the instigator of much of the bloodshed throughout the centuries. For example, the Christian Century of the week of August 30, 1995, reporting on the turmoil in the former Yugoslavia, stated: “In Serb-held Bosnia, priests sit in the front row of the self-styled parliament, and are also at the front lines, where units and even weapons are blessed before battles.”

A century of Christendom’s missionary work in Africa has brought no better result, as was well illustrated in Rwanda, a land reputedly 80-percent Catholic. The New York Times of July 7, 1995, reported: “Golias, a liberal, lay Catholic magazine published in Lyons [France], plans to identify 27 more Rwandan priests and four nuns who it says killed or encouraged the killings in Rwanda last year.” African Rights, a human rights organization in London, had this comment: “Even more than its silence, the churches must answer for the active complicity of some of its priests, pastors and nuns in the genocide.” This resembles the situation in Israel when Jehovah’s true messenger Jeremiah described the “shame” of Israel, along with her rulers, her priests, and her prophets, adding: “In your skirts there have been found the blood marks of the souls of the innocent poor ones.”—Jeremiah 2:26, 34.
...
The UN as a Peacemaker?
...
The 50 prospective members of the United Nations were “to unite [their] strength to maintain international peace and security.” ...
Over the years, the UN has been loudly acclaimed, especially by religious leaders. On April 11, 1963, Pope John XXIII signed his encyclical entitled “Pacem in Terris” (Peace on Earth) in which he stated: “It is our earnest wish that the United Nations organization—in its structure and in its means—may become ever more equal to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks.” Later, in June 1965, religious leaders, said to represent one half of the world’s population, celebrated in San Francisco the 20th birthday of the UN. Also in 1965, Pope Paul VI on a visit to the UN described it as “the last hope of concord and peace.” In 1986, Pope John Paul II cooperated in promoting the UN International Year of Peace.

Again, during his visit in October 1995, the pope declared: “Today we are celebrating the Good News of God’s Kingdom.” But is he actually God’s messenger of Kingdom good news? Speaking of world problems, he went on to say: “As we face these enormous challenges, how can we fail to acknowledge the role of the United Nations Organization?” The UN, rather than God’s Kingdom, is the pope’s choice.

Source: No Peace for the False Messengers!



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
And you will note that my first comment about it quoted just the relevant bible verse that literally states "we are not doing military service" (Latin: non . . . mi·li·taʹmus). Clear as crystal, no excuses to teach that military service is still compatible with Christianity in spite of this text required.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: whereislogic

Ive been pondering this:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* according to what we are in the flesh.


Basically saying that even though we exist as humans, we do not fight in the way of humans.


It's a very confusing sentence. What is the way of the flesh if not greed and jealousy?

Shed some light for me if you can.



2Co 10:3-5 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Literally we live in the flesh, which means we are living in the world as living beings, but we don't warfare in spiritual battles the same way as we would physical battles of war as in the wars of this world. A spiritual battle is something you may go through trying to over come some sin issue in your life. For Example: Under the church age, If you have a problem with sex, which always begins in the mind, you would not take a sword and cut off your male part, or if that desire leads you to look at pornography you don't pluck out your eyes because that would not take care of the problem. (you are not under Law so you could not follow the teaching literally that Jesus Gave saying to cut off parts of your body, but even then I am not convinced Jesus wanted anyone to mutilate their bodies to get to heaven). The problem exists in your thinking, now for that you would need prayer and spiritual fortitude. Once you win the battle of the mind the eyes and all else falls into place like a good soldier.

There are two types of warfare that one can fight. The one in the context of what Paul is teaching is "Spiritual" and has nothing to do with Physical warfare as is defending ones country. Those two things are not the same. Beware when someone quotes a Bible verse which is meant to teach a spiritual lesson on Spiritual levels and teach that it is referring too Joining an nations army.

If ISIS came into the US with a full fledged army and started to go through our country warring against us. I will go out because at that point I cannot live peaceably with them because they wont let me live peaceably.

If someone or a group teaches that you should not join an army that protects your country from foreign invasion that is a false teaching. But on the other hand I wouldn't join so they could send me over to Iraq or Afghanistan for so called peace keeping mission that would be another thing all together, at that point I would invoke my religious conscience into it and insist I not be sent. I would take duty stateside but not over there and they might just court marshal me but at least my conscience is clear.

Remember as a Christian in the church age, we are saved through God's grace by faith alone. If we then try to live by Mosaic Law or any teaching taught under that Age, we are no longer seeing our complete salvation as by God's Grace but by law following, and we then are indebted to keep the whole law (only Jesus did),

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Spiritual Warfare is all done by faith.


edit on 16-10-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChesterJohn
And you will note that my first comment about it quoted just the relevant bible verse that literally states "we are not doing military service" (Latin: non . . . mi·li·taʹmus). Clear as crystal, no excuses to teach that military service is still compatible with Christianity in spite of this text required.

Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) argued from Scripture the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100.
You say it is from scriptures, and your quotes says that it is from from scriptures, but from what scriptures did Tertullian actually use. I don't have a copy of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100. on hand. Apparently you do seeing you just quoted it. I find it interesting that a Jehovah Witness would out right us Roman Catholic literature to prove their own private doctrine.

So please list the Bible verses Tertullian used to argue his point that absolutely for all reasons a Christian should not join military service.

Actually there is not a single Bible verse of any version in the whole post.

a reply to: StallionDuck
Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (CX): “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,​—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254) In his treatise “The Chaplet, or De Corona” (XI), when discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) argued from Scripture the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100.

Early Christians celebrated no state holidays and refused all military service. “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”​—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416. In the modern-day US, that would be the equivalent of soldiers, senators and presidents, for example (or governors, mayors, etc.).

Regarding the early Christians and military service, German theologian Peter Meinhold said: “Being a Christian and a soldier was considered irreconcilable.” In his essay “An Inquiry Into the Accordancy of War With the Principles of Christianity,” religion writer Jonathan Dymond wrote that for some time after the death of Jesus, His followers “refused to engage in [war]; whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.” Dymond added: “These facts are indisputable.” Only when “Christianity became corrupted,” said another writer, did Christians become soldiers.

What is legally called "conscientious objection" (refusing military service) demonstrates true love of both 'neighbor' and enemy (Matthew 5:43-45). Not blessing soldiers, armies and weapons, or teaching that military service is compatible with Christianity.


Regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.” An article in the Reformierte Presse states that a report by African Rights, a human rights organization, on the 1994 Rwandan genocide established the participation of all churches, “with the exception of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”


Source: “No Part of the World”


As a prisoner of war, he had seen widows weeping for their fatherless children, and he had observed Catholic priests blessing Bolivian soldiers.


Source: Paraguay (Yearbook 1998)


The declaration of war by nation against nation; the tramping of millions of men marching to war; the total mobilization of nations for all-out war; the clanking of heavy mechanized firing equipment lumbering off to the front; the pious voices of priests and preachers of all denominations on both sides of the battle lines praying God’s blessing upon the soldiers on their side face to face with soldiers of the same religious faith on the enemy side; the religious chaplains acting as cheerleaders to the fighters; the contagion of war spreading, with already nine nations and globe encircling empires locked in war by October 1, 1914.


Source: What Has God’s Kingdom Been Doing Since 1914?


True Worshippers Recognized by Their Fruits

Regarding true and false worshippers, Jesus Christ told his followers: “Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.” Accordingly, true worshippers would be recognized by their fruits, or works. What are these fruits?​—Matthew 7:16-20.

First, true worship unites believers in love. Jesus explained to his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” True followers of Christ must display love for one another that is so outstanding as to characterize them as true worshippers in the eyes of observers.​—John 13:34, 35.

For this reason it would be unthinkable for true Christians to take up arms against one another in war. D . .



edit on 16-10-2018 by ChesterJohn because: couldn't quote all whereisthelogic's post



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck
Or cherry-picking scriptures to make a lame point (out of context) that still doesn't contradict 2 Corinthians 10:3 even if taken out of context.

Pardon if the word "lame" sounds offensive, that's just how it appears to me and the reason I don't want to do another detailed response to the verse you quoted. The excuses to teach that military service is compatible with Christianity are plenty. None of the subtle twists of Scripture or twisted logic in argumentation is going to negate what God's word literally and clearly states at 2 Cor.10:3. Or any of the other verses quoted in the videos that are avoided by those responding about this subject it seems.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Please stop pretending you didn't notice I was referring to my quotation of 2 Cor.10:3 which that comment was a follow-up about adding some historical facts about early Christians (or self-professed Christians), since you also felt the need to go on and on about 2 Cor.10:3 to make it fit your opinion about military service and it makes you appear deliberately dishonest to me, you clearly did notice that I was referring to that verse when I said:

... my first comment about it quoted just the relevant bible verse that literally states "we are not doing military service" (Latin: non . . . mi·li·taʹmus).

Even if our warfare (or military service) is spiritual instead. The context isn't changing the fact that "we are not doing military service[/do not wage warfare] according to what we are in the flesh".

Now that, is Christian (behaviour), as per the question I was responding to when StallionDuck asked "What is Christian?"

You also said:

Actually there is not a single Bible verse of any version in the whole post.

And besides the fact that it's clear that the post you quoted following that statement was not "my first comment about it", you were wrong about that one as well. In the post you quoted there are bible verses quoted at the end. So eager to paint pictures, that you can't even be bothered to read to the end and get your attempts to discredit right. Or just doing it on purpose to get the type of response you want about it.
edit on 16-10-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join