Christian History: Horrific Protestant/Catholic executions.

a reply to: halfoldman
Two observations.
This is not specifically "Christian history" but "history". The same kind of thing happened in the case of political crimes. Look up what was meant when the judges condemned a man to be "hung, drawn, and quartered".
Also look at what has been happening, all through history, in aeas of the world outside Europe.

Christians got caught up in this because they are human, and therefore fallible.

reply to: mamabeth

Have you ever heard of Nehemia Gordon his Book the tetragram [ Yehovah ] I'm, I was, I will Be. Sounds like Ya, Ho, Vah, in Hebrew. Has found the pronunciation over 1000 times in old Hebrew manuscripts. He's worth a check.

originally posted by: halfoldman
I think had a lot of the true thinkers and humanitarian-style Christian leaders lived at that time, even the colonialism of the Americas might have been different.

The interesting part is as bad as maybe religion was in its time compared to our judgment today it was way ahead of what else was going on.

Christianity itself is not to blame. In a way similar to that of the false Christians in the time of Jude who were “turning the undeserved kindness of God into an excuse for loose conduct,” professed Christians throughout history have dragged the name of Christ into the mire of bigotry and prejudice. (Jude 4)

Interestingly, Jesus himself foretold that some would claim to have performed all sorts of powerful works in his name but would really be “workers of lawlessness”​—no friends of his! (Matthew 7:21-23) Many of these have tried to use the Bible as a justification for their hatreds, prejudices and resulting violent deeds, but reasoning people can see through that hollow pretense. Mary I, queen of England (1553-1558), known as “Bloody Mary” for burning nearly 300 Protestants at the stake, reportedly said: “As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell, there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the Divine vengeance by burning them on earth.” Compare that statement with what the Bible and history really teaches us about:

Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell (One Myth Leads to Another)

You may also want to have a look at Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal.

False Christians will have to answer to God for their wicked deeds. But just as the existence of counterfeit money does not disprove the existence of real money, the existence of imitation Christians in no way diminishes the fact that there are, indeed, true Christians, people who are known for their love, not for their prejudices.

How to tell the difference?

Plenty of clues, or identifying marks given for that purpose in the Bible. Compared with the historical record of those professing to be Christians or Christian Churches, they leave no doubt as to who are the false Christians:

and who are the true Christians:

Insecure “Babylon” Doomed to Destruction (Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace”)

...
The apocalyptic “Babylon the Great,” depicted as an immoral woman who rides “a scarlet-colored wild beast,” stands for the world empire of false religion, including all the religions of so-called Christendom.* (Revelation 17:3-5) According to what the apostle John observed about her, this symbolic organization has committed spiritual fornication with all the political rulers of the earth. The world empire of false religion, Babylon the Great, still wields tremendous influence.

“A Friend of the World”​—Not of God

However, the position of Babylon the Great is very insecure, and that has especially been the case since the end of World War I. During that conflict, she added to her crimes against the human family. The clergymen of Christendom, who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ, preached the young men onto the battlefields. The late Harry Emerson Fosdick, a prominent Protestant clergyman, supported the war effort but later admitted: “Even in our churches we have put the battle flags . . . With one corner of our mouth we have praised the Prince of Peace and with the other we have glorified war.” The priests and other clergymen of Christendom offered prayers for the fighting forces at religious gatherings, and they served as chaplains for the army, the navy, and the air force.*

[*: A detailed discussion of the clergy’s support for World War I is given in the book Preachers Present Arms, by Ray H. Abrams (New York, 1933). The book states: “The clerics gave the war its passionate spiritual significance and drive. . . . The war itself was a holy war to promote the Kingdom of God upon earth. To give one’s life for his country was to give it for God and His Kingdom. God and country became synonymous. . . . The Germans and the Allies were alike in this respect. Each side believed it had the monopoly on God . . . Most of the theologians had no difficulty whatsoever in placing Jesus in the very forefront of the thickest fighting leading his troops on to victory. . . . The church thereby became part and parcel of the war system. . . . The [church] leaders lost no time in getting thoroughly organized on a war-time basis. Within twenty-four hours after the declaration of war, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America laid plans for the fullest cooperation. . . . Many of the churches went much further than they were asked. They became recruiting stations for the enlistment of troops.”​—Pages 53, 57, 59, 63, 74, 80, 82.]

Christendom, under the guidance of these religious leaders, has not taken to heart the words of James 4:4: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.” Thus Christendom carries on as an enemy of the Most High God down to this very time. Certainly she does not have divine protection, and for this vital reason her very existence remains insecure. Her political friends are not to be trusted, and the tide in the antireligious direction continues to gain strength. It is not in her behalf that God says: “Do not you men touch my anointed ones.”​—1 Chronicles 16:22.

...

In contrast again:

Is It Possible to Love One’s Enemies? (Awake!—2009)

... The Encyclopedia of Religion and War states: “The earliest followers of Jesus rejected war and military service,” recognizing these practices as “incompatible with the love ethic of Jesus and the injunction to love one’s enemies.”*

[*: “Christian writers prior to Constantine [Roman emperor 306-337 C.E.] unanimously condemned killing in war,” says the Encyclopedia of Religion and War. A shift in attitude occurred when the apostasy foretold in the Bible became rampant.​—Acts 20:29, 30; 1 Timothy 4:1.]

Army (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

Those Known as Early Christians. 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.

“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.

Context:

Song 141 Searching for Friends of Peace with Tagalog lyrics (playlist)

Although certainly part of "Christian history" (particularly Britain and their colonies), as some have pointed out, to what extent the bloodbaths in the 16th century were motivated by pure belief or secular interests dressed up in religious garb is of course highly debatable. Not only was there the issue of Henry VIII's divorce, his marriages, his deteriorating mental and physical health (apparently he also had syphilis), but it seems clear that the instigator of the English Reformation was also in perpetual need of money and funds, which attach a wholly materialistic rather than "divine" motivations to his actions:

Henry was an extravagant spender, using the proceeds from the dissolution of the monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament. He also converted the money that was formerly paid to Rome into royal revenue. Despite the money from these sources, he was continually on the verge of financial ruin due to his personal extravagance, as well as his numerous costly and largely unsuccessful wars, particularly with King Francis I of France, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, King James V of Scotland and the Scottish regency under the Earl of Arran and Mary of Guise. At home, he oversaw the legal union of England and Wales with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, and he was the first English monarch to rule as King of Ireland following the Crown of Ireland Act

en.wikipedia.org...

From an LGBT perspective it is also significant that under Henry VIII the Buggery Act of 1533 was passed. Once again it is questionable to what extent this was used to smear monks and nuns and confiscate their property (although arguably this was the brainchild of Thomas Cromwell, who was himself ultimately accused of treason and executed - yip karma came quickly back then). But like many things set in motion by Henry VIII it would have long-term repercussions:

This meant that a convicted sodomite’s possessions could be confiscated by the government, rather than going to their next of kin, and that even priests and monks could be executed for the offence—even though they could not be executed for murder.[4] In moving what had previously been an offence tried by ecclesiastical courts into the secular ones, Henry may have intended it as a simple expression of political power along with other contemporary acts such as Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 and one year before the Act of Supremacy 1534.[5] However Henry later used the law to execute monks and nuns (thanks to information his spies had gathered) and take their monastery lands—the same tactics had been used 200 years before by Philip IV of France against the Knights Templar.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

The strange thing for me though is being half Lutheran/Catholic, baptized in a Dutch Reformed (NG) church in Windhoek, and ending my Christian career in a US-style charismatic church, it is that the few times I was in Catholic and Anglican (Church of England) churches (in the army actually) they seemed virtually indistinguishable to me. Both had frocks and "smells and bells", according to my memory. Yet the one was Catholic, and the other Protestant, and if the father belonged to one in "mixed" religious marriages the custom was that so were the kids - at least as far as they were baptized and confirmed. Although at that stage I don't think the majority of people took it too seriously anymore. All very odd, and it all harked back to this time in history. Nevertheless my dad recalls that in Germany in the 1950's and 1960's the Lutheran and Catholic sides of the family didn't talk to each other much, or preferably not at all, but they seemed to have more differences than Anglicans and Catholics in Britain.

From an outsider view point I can see why you would lump them all together, but Catholics and Christians are not interchangeable. The Catholic faith is very different from Christians and what the Bible teaches.

Although no group in history is completely blemish free.

originally posted by: halfoldman
...
The strange thing for me though is being half Lutheran/Catholic, baptized in a Dutch Reformed (NG) church in Windhoek, and ending my Christian career in a US-style charismatic church, it is that the few times I was in Catholic and Anglican (Church of England) churches (in the army actually) they seemed virtually indistinguishable to me. Both had frocks and "smells and bells", according to my memory. ...

Not really that strange since both are part of the collective entity referred to as "Babylon the Great" in the book of Revelation. Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide.

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

Use of images: “[In Mesopotamian religion] the role of the image was central in the cult as well as in private worship, as the wide distribution of cheap replicas of such images shows. Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in the appropriate manner.”—Ancient Mesopotamia—Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1964), A. L. Oppenheim, p. 184.

Belief regarding death: “Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556. (notice how this concept functions as a foundation for the myth of the immortal soul, which I linked an article about before)

Position of the priesthood: “The distinction between priest and layman is characteristic of this [Babylonian] religion.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1948), Vol. 2, p. 861. Most Reverend, Right Reverend, Father, Most Holy Father, Rabbi, His Eminence, His Excellency, His Holiness, His All-Holiness​—these are some of the titles that distinguish the clergy of various religions from the laity. The separation of the clergy from the laity is common to many religions, but is the arrangement from God, or is it a human tradition? More important, does it have God’s approval? “In the New Testament and during the early apostolic times there is no mention of clergy or laity,” wrote professor of theology Cletus Wessels. The Encyclopedia of Christianity states: “There gradually arose a differentiation into clergy as the officeholders and the laity as the rest . . . ‘Ordinary’ church members now came to be seen as an unqualified mass.” That differentiation became prominent during the third century C.E.​—more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ!

If, then, the clergy-laity distinction is not based on the model set by Jesus’ apostles and other early Christians, does that make it wrong? According to the Bible, yes. Consider why.

“All You Are Brothers”

God’s Word tells us that all Christians serve as God’s ministers and that none is above or beneath the other. (2 Corinthians 3:5, 6) “There was a very positive insistence on the absence of class” among early Christians, says religion writer Alexandre Faivre. That “absence of class” harmonizes with Jesus’ words to his followers: “All you are brothers.”​—Matthew 23:8.

“Do not go beyond the things that are written,” the Bible states. (1 Corinthians 4:6) Sadly, when people disregard that divinely inspired directive, spiritual harm usually results, and that is true of the clergy-laity arrangement.

The clergy-laity distinction exalts the clergy class, an evidence being adulatory religious titles. Yet, Jesus said: “He that conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one that is great.” (Luke 9:48) In harmony with that spirit of humility, he told his followers not to adopt religious titles.​—Matthew 23:8-12.

You can also find similarities between the religious concepts and practices found in Catholicism and Buddhism. In fact, when Catholic missionaries first went to Japan, they were mistaken for a new Buddhist sect. How could this be?

Apparently the two religions had much in common. According to historian Durant, things like “the veneration of relics, the use of holy water, candles, incense, the rosary, clerical vestments, a liturgical dead language, monks and nuns, monastic tonsure and celibacy, confession, fast days, the canonization of saints, purgatory and masses for the dead.” He adds that these things “seem to have appeared in Buddhism first.” In fact, Buddhism was said to be “five centuries in advance of the Roman Church in the invention and use of all the ceremonies and forms common to both religions.”

Explaining how these similarities developed, author Layman hints at a common origin. He writes: “By the time of the Christian era . . . pagan influences had become apparent in Buddhist forms of worship. . . . Pagan influences probably were [also] responsible for some of the worship practices which developed in the Christian church.”

Pagan influences, teachings, philosophies and practices (or ritualistic practices, "worship practices") are identifying marks of Babylon the Great. And as the book The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria puts it as quoted before: “These ... elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.” (it was speaking of pagan elements but it confusingly referred to these as “Semitic elements”, so I left that out because I was only quoting part of it this time, the rest of the quotation earlier shows that it's actually speaking about pagan elements)

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.”

The situation there isn't much different in Buddhism or any of the other major religions either. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

“By their fruits you will recognize them.” (Matt. 7:16)
The End of False Religion Is near! (playlist with context)

a reply to: halfoldman

Checkout what Newton already discovered and realized regarding both the Catholic Church as well as the Anglican Church (mentioned after 7:12):

And again, here it is in context:

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality (playlist)

Indicating the non-Christian origin of many of apostate Christendom’s doctrines, ceremonies, and practices, 19th-century Roman Catholic cardinal John Henry Newman wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: “The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [the song “Lord, Have Mercy”], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” But can false teaching be “sanctified,” or made holy?

Belief in the inherent immortality of the human soul, in a hell of torment, and in a trinity of gods is to be found in most Oriental religions as well as in the sects of Christendom. Most of my commentary on ATS usually revolves around these 3 false pagan teachings which find their origin in Babylon and are the most recognizable identifying marks of Babylon the Great. So I'll leave it at that for now (much more detailed information and quotations, both from the Bible, theologians and historians that have researched the evidence, can be found in that commentary if interested, usually in the religion & theology forum, otherwise one of the green forums such as "conspiracies in religion", "philosophy and metaphysics" and "origins and creationism"; evolutionary philosophies after all, also have a pagan Babylonian origin or roots, roots that are intertwined with pantheism, philosphical naturalism and Mother Nature worship).

My first and foremost thread on ATS was based on that article series I linked earlier called:

One myth leads to another (ATS thread)

Another one, zooming in on some of the myths (false pagan teachings) from that article series is called:

Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

a reply to: jjkenobi
Well I kinda knew that the Anglicans consider the British monarch as the head (if only ceremonial, or in a "chancellor" type role) of the church, whereas the Catholics consider the Pope the head of their church.

Apparently to exhume Henry VIII's remains to see what maladies he really had would take the permission of the current British monarch, and, you know, I think permission is unlikely to be granted.

But the services struck me as very similar (well compared to Dutch reformed or charismatic).

Well I went to mass at St George's in Cape Town when we were on parade.
Then a friend once took me to the Catholic church in Bellville.

In the army it was like this: you got a list of all the religious places you could go in the adjacent town every Sunday morning.

So in Upington (where I did my compulsory basics, a village on the edge of the Kalahari Desert) you got a list of churches and synagogues and you had to indicate one. Luckily they had a very nice Lutheran/part-German speaking congregation. Yeah, I got cake and beers.

But there was this one dude who was an atheist - and there was no atheist congregation in Upington. It was still like a border/missionary type place.

So he had to go to the Afrikaner Sergeant, who said that atheism sounds like communism, and as far as he's concerned the communists and the Catholics all hate the Afrikaners, and therefore he's going to the Catholic church.

So this atheist had to go the Catholic church in Upington every Sunday morning.

Ja, that's what happens if you want to be Mr. Smarty Pants.

Although it maybe wasn't all bad - I believe he met his future wife there.

a reply to: halfoldman

Things like that need to be put in the context of the time. There were no political parties at the time, and ideologies such as communism and capitalism didn't really exist, so people simply divided themselves up along religious lines.

In reality most of these wars were over resources, with people being considered one of those. Whoever had the most people had the most land, the most wealth and the greatest ability to prosper.

Protestants and Catholics fighting religious wars isn't all that different between Africans and Arabs fighting over diamond rich land in Africa.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Sure, and here I'm highly interested in the political or economic (perhaps even environmental) factors that drove religion, or religious motives.

Hence the history forum, rather than a purely religious forum.

One thing we do know is that Henry VIII had Malaria (possibly twice).

Yet Malaria is not something we would associate with Britain today.

So the marshes and landscapes began to change rapidly from that point.
And then religious communities and communal ownership of land gradually being replaced by en-zoning and urbanization.

While I'm quite critical of the 16th century as the baseline of British history (an empire on which subsequently the sun once never set from the East to the West), it does seem like Henry VIII also still has his fan-club, who think he was actually quite "enlightened".

a reply to: halfoldman

Religion and Politics​—A Lasting Partnership?

The Russian ruler Vladimir I decided one day that his pagan people should become “Christians.” He himself had been converted in 987 C.E., after marrying a Greek Orthodox princess, and he now decreed mass baptism of his subjects​—at sword point if necessary. Gradually the Russian Church gained independence from its “mother,” the Greek Church, eventually even becoming a department of the State. And though the Soviet rulers today officially deny the existence of God, Church and State in Russia still maintain an uneasy partnership.

Centuries later, King Henry VIII of England also succeeded in forming a close partnership between Church and State, though by different methods. In 1532 he was worried because his wife, Catherine of Aragon, had failed to produce a male heir to the throne. To solve the problem, Henry secretly married his ladylove, Anne Boleyn. This was with the connivance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who pronounced Henry’s first marriage annulled. In 1534 this adulterer and tyrant declared himself the head of the Church of England, a title enjoyed by England’s monarch to this very day. Church Synod decisions are subject to parliamentary approval, and bishops, as members of the House of Lords, take part in governing Britain. Church and State have thus been married in England for over 450 years.

Modern Church-State Marriages

In 1936 a revolt in Spain against the Republican government led to civil war and General Franco’s rise to power. To the dismay of left-wingers, Franco gave the clergy considerable power in return for their exuberant support.

In 1983 the WCC (World Council of Churches) assembled in Vancouver, Canada. Its general secretary, Philip Potter, told them to “stay political.” Grants of money from the WCC to militant political groups in a number of countries have been a source of grave concern to many churchgoers.

There is, therefore, little question that religion meddles in politics. The crucial question, though, is, Should it do so? Is it good or bad? Does religion’s political involvement raise the moral standards of politics, or does it pervert religion? And what of the future? Will religion and politics continue to enjoy their ‘love affair,’ or will it sour and place them on a collision course?

Religion and Politics​—On a Collision Course?

The policy of combining political and religious power in one man did not originate with Henry VIII. In his day it was already a well-tried political ploy designed to promote national unity.

For example, the ancient empire of Egypt had many gods. “Pharaoh himself was one of the gods, and a central figure in his subjects’ lives,” says The New Bible Dictionary. The Roman Empire likewise had a pantheon of gods, including the emperors. One historian describes emperor worship as “the most vital force in the religion of the Roman world.”

But in spite of the fact that Church-State unions are centuries old, Christendom’s modern-day excursions into politics have placed her on a collision course with the very ones whose favor she woos. Why so? To answer this question, let us now take a look at how Christendom became involved in politics in the first place.

True Christianity​—A Contrast

Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, rejected all political power. On at least one occasion, the people, enthused by his miracles, tried forcibly to make him king, but he “withdrew again into the mountain all alone.” (John 6:15) Asked by the Roman governor if he was a king, Jesus replied: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews.”​—John 18:36.

Christ further told his disciples: “Because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.” (John 15:19) So, early Christians did not become sidetracked by social or political problems. Slavery, for example, was then a major problem, but Christians did not campaign so as to abolish it. Instead, Christian slaves were commanded to be obedient to their masters.​—Colossians 3:22.

Rather than dabbling in politics, these early Christians set about to accomplish the work of preaching “concerning the kingdom of God.” (Acts 28:23) In just a few decades their message reached the limits of the then-known world. (Colossians 1:23) And with what effects? Thousands responded and became spiritual ‘brothers and sisters.’ (Matthew 23:8, 9) Jews and Gentiles who became Christians ceased their hostilities. Between the Jews and the Samaritans even major differences disappeared because of the “intense love” Christians had for one another.​—1 Peter 4:8.

Christian love, however, extended even to their enemies. (Matthew 5:44) They therefore refused to join Caesar’s armies. ‘But,’ some may object, ‘did not Jesus say, “Pay back . . . Caesar’s things to Caesar?”’ True. However, was Jesus talking about military service? No, he was merely discussing the issue of whether to ‘pay taxes to Caesar or not.’ (Matthew 22:15-21) So Christians paid their taxes. But they viewed their lives as being dedicated to God and refused to do harm to their fellowman.

Becoming a Friend of the World

‘But look at Christendom today,’ some may say. ‘It is hopelessly divided, its members often slaughter one another, its clergy are embroiled in politics. What happened to Christianity?’ Well, Jesus warned that false Christians would be ‘sown’ in among true Christians. (Matthew 13:24-30) Paul likewise prophesied: “I know that . . . oppressive wolves will enter in among you and . . . men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”​—Acts 20:29, 30.

Even in the first century this trend had begun. The disciple James found it necessary to write these graphic words: “You are as unfaithful as adulterous wives; don’t you realise that making the world your friend is making God your enemy?” (James 4:4, The Jerusalem Bible; italics mine.) Many chose to disregard this divine counsel​—so much so that in the fourth century a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the Emperor Constantine, was able to compromise corrupt “Christianity” further by making it the official religion of the Roman Empire. But in becoming a ‘friend of the world,’ Christendom became God’s enemy. An eventual collision became inevitable.

By the 13th century the Church, ruled by its “pope,” or “father,” had reached “the summit of its power,” setting the stage for an even closer marriage of Church and State. Pope Innocent III became convinced that “the Lord gave Peter the rule not only of the Universal Church but also the rule of the whole world.” (Italics mine.) Continues professor of history T. F. Tout in The Empire and the Papacy: “Innocent’s work was that of an ecclesiastical statesman, . . . making and unmaking kings and emperors at his will.” But adds the same writer: “The more political the papal authority became, the more difficult it was to uphold its prestige as the source of law, of morality, of religion.”

Religion and War

[continued in next comment]

a reply to: halfoldman

Religion and War

War is politics on a more violent scale. Pope Innocent III, however, personally organized a military campaign against the Albigenses of southern France. This led to the ghastly massacre of thousands at Béziers in 1209 and the mass burning of victims by the Holy Inquisition. A crusade, originally intended for Palestine, was diverted by political intrigue to include Constantinople. There, “Christian” knights engaged in a “hideous three days of plunder, murder, lust, and sacrilege.” On whom? On fellow “Christians”! Says one historian: “The very churches were ruthlessly pillaged.”

The un-Christlike methods of the Church eventually led to Martin Luther’s nailing of his challenging theses to the castle church door at Wittenberg in 1517​—and the Reformation was on. But, says H. A. L. Fisher, in History of Europe: “The new confession was . . . closely dependent upon princely and governmental favour.” Germany became divided along politico-religious lines. In France, Calvinists likewise mixed with political leaders. The ensuing wars of religion were therefore fought not only for religious liberty but also because of “rivalry between Protestants and Roman Catholic nobles for control of the Crown.” Thus, the history of religion in Europe is written in blood!

The 20th century dawned with Briton and Boer locked in combat in South Africa. Clergymen on both sides fanned the flames with “exhortations from the pulpit.” Says historian R. Kruger: “The volume of supplication addressed heavenward by either side in the course of the war was only matched by its variety of denominational inspiration.” White “Christians” slaughtered one another while asking God to help them do it!

This pattern was repeated on a colossal scale in 1914 when German troops marched into Belgium wearing belts inscribed with the words “Gott mit uns” (God with us). On both sides the Church was prolific in prayers for victory and vitriolic in abuse of the enemy.

Multitudes were disillusioned by religion’s role in World War I. Calling religion “the opium of the people,” atheists and communists multiplied. Nevertheless, the clergy continued their involvement in politics, supporting Fascist dictators such as Mussolini and Franco. In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church even concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”

Even the possibility of another world war has not swayed the clergy from politics. One recent trend has been for some churches to swerve toward a left-wing political stance. Says one writer: “The latest generation of theologians from Latin America . . . insists that Marxism is the unavoidable political expression of Christianity.” But the Bible warns: “They sow the wind, they will reap the whirlwind.”​—Hosea 8:7, JB.

Reaping the Whirlwind

Yes, the Bible sounds a solemn warning: A terrible clash between religion and politics is coming. In Revelation chapter 17, the Bible depicts the world empire of false religion stained with blood as a “great harlot who sits on many waters.” These “waters” represent ‘peoples and nations.’ (Re 17 Verses 1, 15) The harlot is named “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth,” and she is “drunk with the blood of the holy ones.” (Re 17 Verses 5, 6) “Babylon” is a fitting name for organized false religion, inasmuch as many of her doctrines stem from the ancient city of Babylon (as commented on earlier by me with a few more details). She has earned her murderous reputation by her persecution of true Christians throughout the centuries.

The world empire of false religion is further pictured as riding a beast with “seven heads and ten horns . . . [which] mean ten kings.” (Re 17 Verses 3, 12) A more detailed study of the Bible and history can help one identify this “beast” as the instrument entrusted with maintaining world peace, the United Nations. The churches have gone on record as supporting this organization. In October 1965, Pope Paul VI described the UN as “the last hope of concord and peace.” In 1979, Pope John Paul II addressed the UN General Assembly. Without ever mentioning Christ or his Kingdom, he spoke of the UN as “the supreme forum of peace and justice.”

But why is this union of religion and the UN so dangerous? Because “the ten horns . . . and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked . . . and will completely burn her with fire.” (Re 17 Verse 16) False religion is therefore headed straight for a catastrophic collision with politics. Being denuded and her rank uncleanness revealed, she will be destroyed utterly.

That will spark the “great tribulation” that Jesus spoke of, culminating in the battle of Armageddon. Christ, backed by invincible heavenly hosts, will “crush and put an end to” Satan’s worldwide system, leaving only the ‘meek that will inherit the earth.’ These will be true Christians who have, among other things, steered clear of divisive politics.​—Matthew 24:21; Daniel 2:44; Psalm 37:10, 11; Matthew 5:5; Revelation 6:2; 16:14-16.

If you are one who is distressed over the suffering and reproach that false religion has brought on God’s name, what should you now do? The Bible commands: “Get out of her [false religion], my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins.” (Revelation 18:4) Only Jehovah’s Witnesses are urging people to heed this command. They, like the early Christians, keep out of war and politics and hence will not be in line for destruction when religion collides with politics. They will also gladly show you how to find the “narrow gate” that leads not to destruction but to everlasting life.​—Matthew 7:13, 14; John 17:3.

And show you, from the Bible, the answer to the question:

What Does the Bible Really Teach? (online version)

Of course, one must keep in mind that Satan's system of things including his major tools of brainwashing, conditioning and influence, such as Babylon the Great, have done a real number on you (anyone who reads this) in creating an aversion towards those who actually are trying to tell you the truth about Jehovah and Satan's activities and methods of deception. So it is actuallly quite unlikely that you will want to consult said source for the answer to that question or directions on how to find the “narrow gate” that leads not to destruction but to everlasting life.​—Matthew 7:13, 14; John 17:3. But I encourage anyone who reads this to try to fight or resist their conditioning, and no longer view Jehovah's Witnesses as the gullible brainwashed people, as they are depicted by Satan's system of things and his henchmen in Babylon the Great and elsewhere. Cause it's a trick, they're turning your view of reality upside down, as per the behaviour described at Isaiah 5:20,21:

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

This video might help in correcting that conditioned distorted view of Jehovah's Witnesses:

a reply to: whereislogic

Concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the old South African army their treatment was shameful.

Later concessions were made about being able to serve without uniform or complete exclusion from conscription.

But in the mid-1980's they had to spend six years in military prison, plus the army time they refused to serve.

Often given nothing to wear but a thin overall, and they had to march in the prison from dawn till dusk.
Even on the toilet they had to move their feet up and down.
Their boots had no laces, and their feet festered horribly.
Their food was often "gypoed" or laced with diesel and other poisons that gave them life long digestive problems.

And yet, these dudes were willing to go through that for their faith.

And perhaps a different sect of Christianity, they were Christians nevertheless.

So, while I don't push any specific sect, I take my hat off to the Jehovah's Witness brothers I met.

a reply to: halfoldman

Indeed. “One day,” recalls Keith Wiggill, “after we had a cold shower in the middle of winter, the guards took away our mattresses and blankets. They did not allow us to wear our civilian clothes, so we wore only a pair of shorts and an undershirt. We slept on a damp towel on the ice-cold concrete floor. In the morning the sergeant major was amazed at how happy and well we were. He acknowledged that our God had looked after us during that icy winter night.”

How did the churches of Christendom respond to the issue of compulsory military service in South Africa? The South African Council of Churches (SACC) passed a resolution on conscientious objection in July 1974. Rather than sticking to the religious issue, however, the statement had distinct political overtones. It supported conscientious objection on the grounds that the military was defending an “unjust and discriminatory society” and was thus waging an unjust war. The Afrikaans churches, as well as other church groups, were not in favor of the SACC resolution.

The Dutch Reformed Church supported the government in its military pursuits. It rejected the SACC resolution as a violation of Romans chapter 13. Another group that opposed the SACC stand was that of the religious chaplains serving in the South African Defense Force, which included clergymen from churches that were SACC members. In a joint statement, the chaplains of the English-language churches condemned the resolution and declared: “We . . . urge every member of our churches and especially the young men to make their personal contribution in the defence of the country.”

Furthermore, the individual member churches of the SACC did not take a clear position on neutrality. The book War and Conscience in South Africa admits: “Most . . . failed to clarify their positions to their membership, let alone challenge their members to be conscientious objectors.” The book shows that the government’s strong reaction to the SACC resolution, backed by strict legislation, made the churches hesitant to stress their convictions: “Attempts to commit the church to a constructive programme of action met with failure.”

In contrast, this book acknowledges: “By far the majority of conscientious objectors who were imprisoned were Jehovah’s Witnesses.” It adds: “Jehovah’s Witnesses focused on the rights of individuals to oppose all wars on grounds of conscience.”

The Witnesses’ stand was strictly religious. While they concede that “the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God,” the Witnesses remain politically neutral. (Rom. 13:1) Their primary allegiance goes to Jehovah, who reveals in his Word, the Bible, that his true worshippers will have no share in carnal warfare.​—Isa. 2:2-4; Acts 5:29.

After this system of detention had been operating for a number of years, it was clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses would not abandon their neutral stand to avoid harsh treatment. Furthermore, the detention barracks were overcrowded and attracting negative publicity. There was pressure from some quarters to send the brothers to civil prisons.

Some favorably disposed military authorities disagreed. They respected our young brothers for their high moral standards. If the brothers went to a civil prison, they would have a criminal record. They would also be exposed to the worst elements of society and the threat of rape. Thus, arrangements were made for them to do community service in governmental departments not connected with the military. When the political climate in the country changed in the 1990’s, compulsory military service was abolished.

How were these young brothers affected by being detained for a lengthy period at such a crucial time in their lives? Many built up a fine record of loyal service to Jehovah and used this opportunity wisely to study God’s Word and to grow spiritually. “My stay in the detention barracks marked a turning point in my life,” says Cliff Williams. “The clear evidence of Jehovah’s protection and blessing during my detention motivated me to do more to further Kingdom interests. Shortly after my release in 1973, I started regular pioneering, and the following year I entered Bethel, where I still serve today.”

Stephen Venter, who was 17 years old when he went to the detention barracks, said: “I was an unbaptized publisher with a limited knowledge of the truth. The spiritual support I received from the daily Bible text discussion​—which we had in the mornings while we polished the floors—​the regular meetings, and the Bible study conducted with me by a more experienced brother made it bearable. Although there were some bad times, it’s amazing how little I remember of those! In fact, the three years in detention were perhaps the best years of my life. That experience helped me to make the transition from boyhood to manhood. I got to know Jehovah, and that motivated me to take up the full-time service.”

The unjust detention of these brothers served a good purpose. Gideon Benade, who visited the brothers in the detention barracks wrote, “Looking back, one realizes what a powerful witness was given.” The endurance of these brothers and the many news reports about their trials and sentences left an indelible record of the neutral stand of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which made an impression both on the military and on the country as a whole.

THE INTEGRITY OF THE BLACK BROTHERS

During the early years of apartheid rule, the black brothers did not face the same tests of neutrality that the white brothers did. For example, blacks were not called up for military service. However, when political black groups began to challenge apartheid rule, severe trials befell the black Witnesses. Some were killed, others were beaten, others fled as their homes and possessions went up in flames​—all because they refused to violate their neutrality. Yes, they were determined to obey Jesus’ command to be “no part of the world.”​—John 15:19.

Some political groups required everyone in their area to buy a political party card. Representatives from these groups called at people’s homes to demand money for weapons or for the funeral expenses of their comrades who had died in battles with the white security forces. Because the black brothers respectfully refused to pay such money, they were accused of being spies for the apartheid government. While engaging in field service, some brothers and sisters were attacked and accused of spreading white Afrikaans propaganda.

Take for example, Elijah Dlodlo, who gave up a promising career in sports to become one of Jehovah’s dedicated servants. Two weeks before South Africa’s first democratic election, tension ran high between rival black communities. Elijah’s congregation decided to cover their seldom-worked territory, located a few miles away. Elijah, baptized for only two months, was assigned to work with two boys who were unbaptized publishers. While speaking to a lady at her door, they were confronted by a group of youths, members of a political movement. The leader wielded a sjambok, a heavy leather whip. “What’s going on here?” he demanded.

“We are talking about the Bible,” replied the householder.

Ignoring her, the angry man said to Elijah and his two companions: “You three boys, join us. Now is not the time for the Bible; now is the time to fight for our rights.”

Elijah boldly replied, “We cannot do that because we are working for Jehovah.”

The man then pushed Elijah and began to beat him with the sjambok. With each blow, the man shouted, “Join us!” After the first blow, Elijah no longer felt pain. He found strength in the words of the apostle Paul, who said that all true Christians ‘will be persecuted.’​—2 Tim. 3:12.

The man eventually became tired and stopped. Then one of the attackers criticized the man who had the whip, saying that Elijah was not from their community. The group became divided and began fighting among themselves, the leader receiving a severe beating with his own sjambok. Meanwhile, Elijah and his two companions escaped. This test strengthened Elijah’s faith, and he continued to make progress as a fearless preacher of the good news. Today, he is married, has children, and serves as an elder in his congregation.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: halfoldman
Two observations.
This is not specifically "Christian history" but "history". The same kind of thing happened in the case of political crimes. Look up what was meant when the judges condemned a man to be "hung, drawn, and quartered".
Also look at what has been happening, all through history, in aeas of the world outside Europe.

Christians got caught up in this because they are human, and therefore fallible.

Further to that, although religion may be the flag under which the action takes place, the goal is almost always power, not glory to the appropriate ideology.