Some Questions; What is Christianity / What is 'Saved'?

I've read that Jesus doesn't necessarily use the term Holy Spirit, and that it usually a second or third hand reference. Usually Holy Spirit is applied to him alot, but from quick search, he only uses it one passage after his death when he sends out the disciples according to Mathew.

He does mention "Father" alot in comparison, and with the whole Trinity, it should be interchangeable to say the least. The only other alternate usage applied to Jesus was the Spirit of Truth by John the Baptist.

As for saved from what, that would be god.

originally posted by: whereislogican to Be a Christian? (Awake!—2007)[/url]
In contrast, 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. But as for true Christians, the Bible informs us:

“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 Cor 10:3-5)

and see, when it comes to those details. I can just go on and on.

we do not overcome evil through physical means. it would be nice to be able to beat the devil out of people but it doesn't work that way. we win souls through words and prayer, not smacking them until they submit.
as far as military service, soldiers asked John the Baptist what God wanted from them and he told them to follow their orders and not harass the civilians. he didn't tell them to stop being soldiers. the military is a perfectly acceptable path for Christians.

originally posted by: Proto88
I've read that Jesus doesn't necessarily use the term Holy Spirit, and that it usually a second or third hand reference. Usually Holy Spirit is applied to him alot, but from quick search, he only uses it one passage after his death when he sends out the disciples according to Mathew.

He does mention "Father" alot in comparison, and with the whole Trinity, it should be interchangeable to say the least. The only other alternate usage applied to Jesus was the Spirit of Truth by John the Baptist.

as Jesus' ministry ended he told the disciples what was going to happen next. He was finished, now the Spirit would attend.
when Jesus was baptized, He was there; the Father spoke; the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.

As for saved from what, that would be god.

saved from sin slavery in this world, and eternal death in the next.

a reply to: ElGoobero

the fact that Jesus lived without committing any sin.

Did he? I guess that strongly depends on how you define 'sin'.
But I mean if I'd be wandering about cursing fig trees because they don't carry fruits when I want them while convincing people for decades to come to put me one the same level as the one and only supreme divine... some people might rightfully observe there's a certain pride involved on my end, wouldn't they?
...at the very least.

Christianity has so many problems, not the least of which is why a merciful God ever would have had need for an incarnation scheme that shows an allegedly all-powerful deity being tortured and horrificly killed without being able to save himself.

Just like

humans have sinned against God, and the penalty for this sin is death. Jesus' death was accept as payment for any and all of our sins

doesn't add up. There's still death. There's still sin. All of Jesus' promises time has proven to be lies. So the only real question is why people still believe in any of the Christian doctrine?

And I'm not denying that he existed, or was playing with powerful 'sources' I'm just saying if anything he was the incarntion of the adversary of God and not God himself.
Not a popular opinion but I think self evident if you look at the historic development of Christianity. And per se probably not even a bad thing if you imagine that dispute on the example of Zeus and Prometheus.
...you know from a human perspective...

But for starters: God isn't born, God doesn't die, God doesn't inhabit a meatbag. That goes against the very definition of what a God is.
The only reason you believe that is because a Roman Emperor once thought it was convenient for his consolidation of power if you would. From the same tptb that killed the God you worship.
If that doesn't # your mind you're truly lost.

If you want to save yourself put J.C. on the same level of the prophets and saints if you really must but stop comitting the sin of deifying your own image.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ElGoobero

the fact that Jesus lived without committing any sin.

Did he? I guess that strongly depends on how you define 'sin'.
But I mean if I'd be wandering about cursing fig trees because they don't carry fruits when I want them while convincing people for decades to come to put me one the same level as the one and only supreme divine... some people might rightfully observe there's a certain pride involved on my end, wouldn't they?
...at the very least.

they're His fig trees. He can curse them if he wants.
to illustrate a deeper lesson. those blessed and called are expected to share and be a blessing to others.

Christianity has so many problems, not the least of which is why a merciful God ever would have had need for an incarnation scheme that shows an allegedly all-powerful deity being tortured and horrificly killed without being able to save himself.

no one can say that Jesus did not live and suffer like the rest of us. the pain was awful, but the end result was victory.
most women suffer through childbirth but the end result is worth it.

Just like

humans have sinned against God, and the penalty for this sin is death. Jesus' death was accept as payment for any and all of our sins

doesn't add up. There's still death. There's still sin. All of Jesus' promises time has proven to be lies. So the only real question is why people still believe in any of the Christian doctrine?

which promises are lies? I'm not aware of any.
the fact that after 2000 years Christianity is still here is pretty good evidence that there's something about it that works.

And I'm not denying that he existed, or was playing with powerful 'sources' I'm just saying if anything he was the incarnation of the adversary of God and not God himself.

nope nope nope. the enemy does not serve. the enemy never suffers intentionally.

Not a popular opinion but I think self evident if you look at the historic development of Christianity. And per se probably not even a bad thing if you imagine that dispute on the example of Zeus and Prometheus.
...you know from a human perspective...

no comprend. Zeus and Prometheus???

But for starters: God isn't born, God doesn't die, God doesn't inhabit a meatbag. That goes against the very definition of what a God is.

Jesus broke the mold, one might say. voluntarily.

The only reason you believe that is because a Roman Emperor once thought it was convenient for his consolidation of power if you would. From the same tptb that killed the God you worship.

they tried to persecute us to annihilation. they failed. plan B, if you can't beat them, take them over. some people say the Roman recognition was the worst thing that ever happened to the church!

If that doesn't # your mind you're truly lost.

If you want to save yourself put J.C. on the same level of the prophets and saints if you really must but stop committing the sin of deifying your own image.

how am I deifying myself or my image?
and Jesus was much, much greater than any prophet or saint.

a reply to: ElGoobero

end result was victory.

How so? Like I said there's still death, there's still sin. He accomplished absolutely nothing that made it necessary or worthwhile to go through it all.

worst thing that ever happened to the church!

Yet here you are happily parroting what they decided you should believe which is that Jesus is the incarnation of God. That's pretty funny.
That wasn't a thing you know, in pre-Nicaea Christianity and a matter of huge debate afterwards.

But that's exactly where the whole entity of Christianity turned into nothing but blasphemy.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ElGoobero

end result was victory.

How so? Like I said there's still death, there's still sin. He accomplished absolutely nothing that made it necessary or worthwhile to go through it all.

death and sin in this world. but not the next.

Yet here you are happily parroting what they decided you should believe which is that Jesus is the incarnation of God. That's pretty funny.
That wasn't a thing you know, in pre-Nicaea Christianity and a matter of huge debate afterwards.

But that's exactly where the whole entity of Christianity turned into nothing but blasphemy.

no comprend. Christianity has always accepted Jesus as divine.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Sure. A hypothetical 'next world' that may or may not exist. I got fine property to sell there, PM me if you're interested. lol
And also no. It was a huge discussion. Not accepted until at least 6th century. But ey right, how could you know the history of your religion you offered so graciously to answer any questions about.
again:

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ElGoobero

Sure. A hypothetical 'next world' that may or may not exist. I got fine property to sell there, PM me if you're interested. lol

taken care of. house being built by a carpenter I know.
I know I can't *prove* that there is a next world. some things are a matter of faith.

And also no. It was a huge discussion. Not accepted until at least 6th century. But ey right, how could you know the history of your religion you offered so graciously to answer any questions about.
again:

still no comprend. are you saying the early church denied Jesus' divinity?

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: Proto88
I've read that Jesus doesn't necessarily use the term Holy Spirit, and that it usually a second or third hand reference. Usually Holy Spirit is applied to him alot, but from quick search, he only uses it one passage after his death when he sends out the disciples according to Mathew.

He does mention "Father" alot in comparison, and with the whole Trinity, it should be interchangeable to say the least. The only other alternate usage applied to Jesus was the Spirit of Truth by John the Baptist.

as Jesus' ministry ended he told the disciples what was going to happen next. He was finished, now the Spirit would attend.
when Jesus was baptized, He was there; the Father spoke; the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.

As for saved from what, that would be god.

saved from sin slavery in this world, and eternal death in the next.

That wasn't what I was implying, he rarely ever uses the term Holy Spirit, while consistently using "Father". While everyone in the N.T refers to the Father as the Holy Spirit, especially Paul the Apostle widely uses the term, an is more concerned with Jesus being his literal Son.

Not to get too into the semantics of it all, but I do like the idea that when he says he a the son of god, he is referring to himself as a disciple or prodigy. Where when he uses the Son of Man, he would be a prime example of the mortal frame. Thing is like Alan Watts once said, it impossible to actually follow Jesus, he be too...monotone or robotic in comparison.

Heck, there tons of controversy regarding him an Madeline, re enacting the first sin, while the guys say he was a very happy man, while the Church says no, he wouldn't fall into a venus fly trap.

I've read the O.T, and an earlier poster said Judgement, which is actually done by God. There his jealous temperament, the plagues of Egypt, Elijah punishing Israel, an God making Satan prince of the world just to see who naughty or nice in some epic showdown that God wins.

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: Proto88
I've read that Jesus doesn't necessarily use the term Holy Spirit, and that it usually a second or third hand reference. Usually Holy Spirit is applied to him alot, but from quick search, he only uses it one passage after his death when he sends out the disciples according to Mathew.

He does mention "Father" alot in comparison, and with the whole Trinity, it should be interchangeable to say the least. The only other alternate usage applied to Jesus was the Spirit of Truth by John the Baptist.

as Jesus' ministry ended he told the disciples what was going to happen next. He was finished, now the Spirit would attend.
when Jesus was baptized, He was there; the Father spoke; the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.

As for saved from what, that would be god.

saved from sin slavery in this world, and eternal death in the next.

That wasn't what I was implying, he rarely ever uses the term Holy Spirit, while consistently using "Father". While everyone in the N.T refers to the Father as the Holy Spirit, especially Paul the Apostle widely uses the term, an is more concerned with Jesus being his literal Son.

Not to get too into the semantics of it all, but I do like the idea that when he says he a the son of god, he is referring to himself as a disciple or prodigy. Where when he uses the Son of Man, he would be a prime example of the mortal frame. Thing is like Alan Watts once said, it impossible to actually follow Jesus, he be too...monotone or robotic in comparison.

Heck, there tons of controversy regarding him an Madeline, re enacting the first sin, while the guys say he was a very happy man, while the Church says no, he wouldn't fall into a venus fly trap, or be that happy, while having a monogamous relationship would eliminatethe gay rumours.

While Pope mean Papa/Dada.

I've read the O.T, and an earlier poster said Judgement, which is actually done by God. There his jealous temperament, the plagues of Egypt, Elijah punishing Israel, an God making Satan prince of the world, whom he has total command over,just to see who naughty or nice in some epic showdown that God wins.

Fear the Lord.

originally posted by: Zenchuck
a reply to: visitedbythem

Agreed. Truth comes from the Holy Spirit. We are all blind and lost without him. I say him, because he is described as a distinct being. The trinity is a mystery, like the blood, the cross, salvation, and many other concepts. How can you understand these mysteries? Dont ask me. Read your Bible and ask God. 99% of your problems are going to come from not working out your own salvation. We are not cookie cutter, and neither is our relationship to God.

I believe there is a great deception overtaking the church. We need to turn on the lights.

Excellent reply! Thank you!

In my home:

a reply to: ElGoobero

The early church didn't deny his divinity per se... they just questioned what it meant to be divine...

In the first few centuries after he died Jesus was not considered "god in the flesh", and there was certainly no trinity.... that was an after thought of the second and third century which ended in the trinity, after many a debate.

You might want to look up the Arian controversy.... Arius was on the opposite side of the "trinity" believers. Not so much saying it didn't exist, but that Jesus was subordinate to the Father... In said discussion, one of Arius' main opponents decided to be very "unChrist like" and slapped Arius... him being merely a deacon at the time, and Arius being the Bishop of Alexandria... not sure how he got away with that... but anyways

Someone ended up poisoning Arius... they said that his stomach exploded because of his heresy... obviously thats a load of horse****.... and guess who took his place....lol

we still have some of the documents of the whole ordeal... very interesting read IF you're into that kind of stuff...

By the way.... Arius was actually correct.... but thats not what the church wanted to promote at the time

Edit: ah i found my old thread on the topic...

Reconciling Arius

a reply to: ElGoobero

Is the literal translation of 2 Corinthians 10:3, “we are not doing military service”, difficult to understand? Is it not crystal clear to you? Cause it is to me.

Not to mention the secular historical evidence concerning the early Christians that I shared.

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.

On the night of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest, one of his disciples drew his sword to defend him. Jesus commanded him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) The following morning, Jesus told Pontius Pilate: “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. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36) Is this teaching impractical?

What was the attitude of the early Christians toward what Jesus taught about not resorting to violence? The book The Early Christian Attitude to War says: “Inasmuch as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war . . . The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.” How different the course of history would have been had all those who claimed to be Christians actually followed this teaching!

While the earliest Christians endeavored to be good citizens, their faith prevented them from taking the life of another or from sacrificing their own lives for the State. The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, affirmed that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented them from participating in the Roman army.” In his book The Early Church and the World, Professor C. J. Cadoux writes: “Up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.”

Why do members of the churches of Christendom not view things this way today? Because of a radical change that took place in the fourth century. The Catholic work A History of the Christian Councils explains: “Many Christians, . . . under the pagan emperors, had religious scruples with regard to military service, and positively refused to take arms, or else deserted. The Synod [of Arles, held in 314 C.E.], in considering the changes introduced by Constantine, set forth the obligation that Christians have to serve in war, . . . because the Church is at peace (in pace) under a prince friendly to Christians.” As a result of this abandonment of Jesus’ teachings, from that time until now, the clergy of Christendom have encouraged their flocks to serve in the armies of the nations, although some individuals have taken a stand as conscientious objectors.

Who Are Genuine Christians? (2006)

“CHRISTIANITY exists only where the memory of Jesus Christ is activated in theory and practice.” (On Being a Christian) With those words, Swiss theologian Hans Küng states a self-evident truth: Genuine Christianity exists only where sincere individuals put Jesus’ teachings into practice.

What, then, if individuals or institutions claim to be followers of Christ but do not, in fact, practice what Jesus taught? Jesus himself said that many would claim to be Christians. They would point to various activities to prove that they had served him, saying: “Did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?” How, though, would Jesus react? His dramatic words express his judgment: “I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”​—Matthew 7:22, 23.

What a stark warning for “workers of lawlessness” who claim to follow Jesus! Consider two fundamental conditions that Jesus sets if he is to recognize people as genuine Christians rather than reject them as workers of lawlessness.

“If You Have Love Among Yourselves”

One condition Jesus sets is this: “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.”​—John 13:34, 35.

Jesus requires his followers to have genuine love for one another and for the rest of mankind. Many individual Christians have fulfilled that condition during the centuries since Jesus walked the earth. But what about most of the religious organizations that have claimed to represent Christ? Has their history been marked by love? Certainly not. Instead, they have been in the forefront of countless wars and conflicts in which innocent blood has been spilled.​—Revelation 18:24.

That has been true right up to modern times. Nations claiming to be Christian took the lead in the slaughter that marked the two world wars of the 20th century. More recently, members of so-called Christian churches were in the forefront of the savage atrocities and attempted genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. “Those who had turned against one another in this gory fashion,” writes former Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu, “espoused the same faith. Most were Christian.”

“If You Remain in My Word”

A second fundamental requirement for genuine Christianity was spelled out by Jesus when he said: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:31, 32.

Jesus expects his followers to remain in his word​—that is, to stick to his teachings. Instead, religious teachers claiming to follow Christ have “increasingly adopted Greek concepts,” notes theologian Küng. They have replaced Jesus’ teachings with, among others, ideas like the immortality of the soul, a belief in purgatory, worship of Mary, and a clergy class​—ideas borrowed from pagan religions and philosophers.​—1 Corinthians 1:19-21; 3:18-20.

Religious teachers also introduced the incomprehensible doctrine of the Trinity, elevating Jesus to a position he never claimed for himself. In the process, they distracted people from worshipping the one to whom Jesus always directed attention​—his Father, Jehovah. (Matthew 5:16; 6:9; John 14:28; 20:17) “When Jesus speaks of God,” writes Hans Küng, “he means the ancient God of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: Yahweh . . . For him this is the one and sole God.” How many people today immediately associate Jesus’ God and Father with Yahweh, or Jehovah, as his name is commonly written in the English language?

Religious leaders have completely departed from Jesus’ command to stay neutral in political affairs. In Jesus’ day, Galilee “was the heartland of ethnic nationalism,” states writer Trevor Morrow. Many Jewish patriots took up arms to gain political and religious freedom. Did Jesus tell his disciples to get involved in such struggles? No. On the contrary, he told them: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19; 17:14) Instead of remaining neutral, however, church leaders developed what Irish writer Hubert Butler describes as “militant and political ecclesiasticism.” “Political Christianity,” he writes, “is almost always also militarist Christianity and when statesmen and ecclesiastics come to terms it always happens that, in return for certain privileges, the Church gives its blessing to the military forces of the state.”

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ElGoobero

...

What was the attitude of the early Christians toward what Jesus taught about not resorting to violence? The book The Early Christian Attitude to War says: “Inasmuch as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war . . . The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.” How different the course of history would have been had all those who claimed to be Christians actually followed this teaching!

Coming back to that point...

Part 21—1900 onward—Skirts Splattered With Blood (Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past; Awake!—1989)

“There is no sure foundation set on blood.”​—Shakespeare, English poet and dramatist (1564-1616)

DO YOU remember the Jonestown, Guyana, tragedy of 11 years ago this month? Over 900 members of the religious group known as People’s Temple committed mass suicide, most of them willingly, by drinking a cyanide-laced fruit drink.

Shocked, people asked: ‘What kind of religion is it that sacrifices the lives of its own members?’ Yet, innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion for almost 6,000 years. In the 20th century, however, blood has been shed more often and in more ways than at any other time in history. Consider just a fraction of the evidence.

Human Sacrifices to a False God

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.” (Italics ours.) By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany​—birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of “the best Catholics in the world”—​should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer.

Significantly, Catholic Adolf Hitler found readier support among Protestants than among Catholics. Predominantly Protestant districts gave him 20 percent of their votes in the 1930 elections, Catholic districts only 14 percent. And the first absolute majority for the Nazi Party in state elections was in 1932 in Oldenburg, a district 75 percent Protestant.

Apparently, the “void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values” was greater in Protestantism than in Catholicism. Understandably so. Liberalized theology and higher criticism of the Bible were mainly the product of German-speaking Protestant theologians.

Equally significant is what finally solidified lagging Catholic support behind Hitler. German historian Klaus Scholder explains that “by tradition German Catholicism had especially close ties with Rome.” Seeing in Nazism a bulwark against Communism, the Vatican was not averse to using its influence to strengthen Hitler’s hand. “Fundamental decisions shifted more and more to the Curia,” says Scholder, “and in fact Catholicism’s status and future in the Third Reich was finally decided almost solely in Rome.”

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.”

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. 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.

Nevertheless, in view of its own bloodstained clothing, Christendom cannot self-righteously shake its finger at others. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed.

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

“They Kept Spilling Innocent Blood”

Those words, said of apostate Israel centuries ago, apply to all false religions and to those of Christendom in particular. (Psalm 106:38) Do not forget the millions of lives snuffed out in the Holocaust, a tragedy in which Christendom’s churches were not guiltless.​—See Awake! April 8, 1989.

German clergymen also remained silent on another issue, less known, but just as tragic. In 1927, two years after Hitler outlined his thoughts on race in Mein Kampf, Catholic editor and theologian Joseph Mayer published a book bearing the episcopal imprimatur that said: “Mental patients, moral lunatics, and other inferior persons have no more right to propagate than they do to set fires.” Lutheran pastor Friedrich von Bodelschwingh found sterilization of the handicapped compatible with Jesus’ will.

This religiously supported attitude helped pave the way for Hitler’s 1939 “euthanasia decree,” which led to the death of more than 100,000 mentally deranged citizens and to the forced sterilization of an estimated 400,000.* [This is somewhat reminiscent of the estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 “witches” who, beginning in the 15th century, were murdered with papal blessing.]

...

“Religion has, in many parts of the world today, become the handmaiden of revolution . . . It continues to inspire killing in Northern Ireland as much as on the Indian subcontinent and in the Philippines.”​—The Encyclopedia of Religion

Continued in next comment.

Why the Churches Kept Silent (Awake!—1995)

ON DECEMBER 8, 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.” One voice, however, did consistently speak out about clergy involvement with Hitler’s regime. And the voice, as we have seen, was that of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

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?

Role of Catholic Church

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.

Who Else Was Silent, Who Was Not

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.”

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.

Why They Were Silent

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.

There was, however, one voice that consistently spoke out. Though the news media, by and large, overlooked the churches as major players in the Nazi drama, Jehovah’s Witnesses felt compelled to expose the treachery and hypocrisy of the clergy, with details of their behind-​the-​scenes collusion. In the pages of the forerunner of this magazine as well as other publications throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s, they printed strong indictments of religious organizations that became Nazism’s handmaidens.

Identifying Christ’s True Followers

...

Should we do the genocide in Rwanda now? “Death Chambers”

“Organizers of the genocide exploited the historic concept of sanctuary to lure tens of thousands of Tutsi into church buildings with false promises of protection; then Hutu militia and soldiers systematically slaughtered the unfortunate people who had sought refuge, firing guns and tossing grenades into the crowds gathered in church sanctuaries and school buildings, and methodically finishing off survivors with machetes, pruning hooks, and knives. . . . The involvement of the churches, however, went far beyond the passive use of church buildings as death chambers. In some communities, clergy, catechists, and other church employees used their knowledge of the local population to identify Tutsi for elimination. In other cases, church personnel actively participated in the killing.”​—Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda.

Revelation 18:

After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a place where every unclean spirit* [Or possibly, “breath; exhalation; inspired statement.”] and every unclean and hated bird lurks! 3 For because of the wine of the passion* [Or “anger.”] of her sexual immorality,* [Greek, por·neiʹa. See Glossary.] all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants* [Or “traveling merchants.”] of the earth became rich owing to the power of her shameless luxury.”

4 And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice* [Or “her crimes.”] to mind.

...

23 No light of a lamp will ever shine in you again, and no voice of a bridegroom and of a bride will ever be heard in you again; for your merchants were the top-ranking men of the earth, and by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled. 24 Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.”

Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Definition: The world empire of false religion, embracing all religions whose teachings and practices do not conform to the true worship of Jehovah, the only true God. Following the Flood of Noah’s day, false religion had its beginning at Babel (later known as Babylon). (Gen. 10:8-10; 11:4-9) In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

What evidence points to the identity of Babylon the Great, referred to in 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: ...

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.

In contrast, the Bible says:

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”​—Ezekiel 18:4, King James Version.

Source: Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal

And...

“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, . . . for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”​—Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, Revised Standard Version.

Source: Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

...

False Religion . . .

◼ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: ...

◼ SPREADS FALSE DOCTRINE: Most religions teach that the soul or spirit is some invisible part of a human that survives the death of the physical body. By means of this teaching, many of these religions exploit their members, charging money to pray for departed souls. However, the Bible teaches a different doctrine. “The soul that is sinning​—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Jesus taught that the dead will be resurrected​—an unnecessary action if humans had an immortal soul. (John 11:11-25) Does your religion teach that the soul does not die?

...

Source: The End of False Religion Is Near!

...

What is the origin of Christendom’s belief in an immaterial, immortal soul?

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”—Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”—Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought 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 (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

Source: Soul (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Continuing with the first source:

Position of the priesthood: “The distinction between priest and layman is characteristic of this [Babylonian] religion.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1948), Vol. 2, p. 861.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic

Though the news media, by and large, overlooked the churches as major players in the Nazi drama, ...

And they still do. In every WW II documentary I've seen on Discovery Channel in my country (and I've seen a lot, cause they're on all the time), not once have I seen this subject addressed in the same or similar manner that I just addressed it by quoting these articles. They avoid it like the plague.

Much like they avoid the evolutionary philosophies involved in shaping their racist ideologies concerning the superiority of the Aryan race, and blacks and Jews being more closely related to apes than white people, from where we get this behaviour of making monkey noises towards black players at football matches nowadays, also never mentioned when the news media talks about these incidents of racism (especially the claims of Darwin and Haeckel regarding this point, which is what all this is based on, where they got these evolutionary ideas and the accompanying attitudes).



The Bible is proven right again by the evidence from history...

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“False stories” (2 Tim 4:4) is a translation of the greek myʹthos, the KJV renders it as “myths”, which is a synonym.

Evolution—Myths and Facts

By the way, evolutionary myths also trace their roots back to ancient Babylon, the religious propaganda center of the ancient world.

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ElGoobero

Is the literal translation of 2 Corinthians 10:3, “we are not doing military service”, difficult to understand? Is it not crystal clear to you? Cause it is to me.

I already addressed that.

On the night of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest, one of his disciples drew his sword to defend him. Jesus commanded him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) The following morning, Jesus told Pontius Pilate: “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. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36) Is this teaching impractical?

Jesus told Peter to put away the sword because His kingdom wasn't going to be established by physical force--at that time and place.

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war...And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God."
Rev 19:11,14,15
so there will be warfare, but only at the end.

also, He told Peter to sell his cloak and buy a sword, knowing we would at times have to fight for our safety.


Matthew 8 and Acts 10 speak of Roman centurions loyal to the faith. if Christians weren't supposed to be soldiers what were they doing?

originally posted by: ElGoobero

I already addressed that.

Well, you reiterated that Christians do not conduct fleshly warfare, but that doesn't actually show that military service that results in participating in fleshly warfare is compatible with being a Christian, does it? Nor does it negate the clear description there that Christians do not do military service. The situation remains the same. Christians do not do military service in a fleshly way (their war is spiritual and fought with words, arguments and reasoning things out to overturn "reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God"; eg. what I'm doing right now).

None of what you bring up actually negates that, or shows that military service itself is compatible with Christianity. Or that God approves of it. Likewise, surely it is possible for Roman soldiers to demonstrate faith* as described at Matthew 8 without it contradicting or negating the clear description of Christians not doing military service at 2 Cor 10:3? (*: for some reason you described this as "loyal to the faith", unless that was referring to Acts 10, which uses the word "devout")

I think the example of and evidence concerning the early Christians is just as clear and telling as 2 Cor 10:3-5. And who knows, perhaps both Roman soldiers resigned their commissions "after becoming a Christian" (quoting from The Rise of Christianity, see below; mind you, there's no indication in these texts that they already were Christians, or even viewed that way), that was not really the subject at Matthew 8 and Acts 10, so that information is not included there. But we do have a clue regarding whether or not they might have done that from secular history again, as quoted before:

“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)

That would count for these soldiers as well then (the bolded part).

The war Jesus and the angels will fight against God's enemies at the conclusion of this system of things is of little relevance here. But here too there's still something of interest to note in relation to this discussion:

(Har–Ma·gedʹon) [from Heb., meaning “Mountain of Megiddo”].

This name is directly associated with “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” The term applies specifically to the condition, or situation, to which “the kings of the entire inhabited earth” are gathered in opposition to Jehovah and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. In a number of versions it is rendered “Armageddon.” (Re 16:14, 16, AT; KJ; JB; RS; TEV) The name Har–Magedon, taken from Hebrew, means simply “Mountain of Megiddo.”

...

Since the vision in Revelation chapter 19 reveals only armies in heaven as participating in the warfare as supporters of Jesus Christ, The Word of God, it indicates that none of Jehovah’s Christian servants on earth will participate in the fighting. This is in harmony with the words of Jesus Christ at Matthew 26:52 that his disciples not resort to weapons of physical warfare. (Compare Ex 14:13, 14; 2Ch 20:15, 17, 22, 23; Ps 2:4-9.) ...

Source: Har–magedon (Insight on the Scriptures)

I don't want to say anything that offends you (or offends you too much), but it does feel a bit like you're grasping at straws to find support for your view that military service to any of “the kings of the entire inhabited earth” (i.e. any nation) is compatible with Christianity or God's will. I hope one day you will consider whether that kind of support to any of “the kings of the entire inhabited earth” (any nation) is putting or might eventually put you on the wrong side for the above mentioned war. Best not fight the incoming 'alien invasion' (as it may be painted by the supporters of Satan and “the wild beast” mentioned at Rev. 19:19 quoted further below*, to justify their 'standing in opposition'), you'll lose.

Rev. 11:18: “The nations became wrathful, and your own [Jehovah’s] wrath came, and the appointed time . . . to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

...

Will Armageddon be fought only in the Middle East?

Rulers and armies of all nations will be assembled in opposition to God

Rev. 16:14: “They go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”

Rev. 19:19: “I saw the wild beast [human political rulership as a whole] and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the war with the one seated on the horse and with his army.”

...

The reference to Megiddo (meaning “Assembly of Troops”) is appropriate because Armageddon is a world situation in which the troops and other supporters of the rulers of all nations will be involved.

Source: Armageddon (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

No room for patriotism (or nationalism) then.

...

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

...

Source: War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

*: Some more information about “the wild beast” mentioned at Rev. 19:19 and those receiving its mark:

Identifying the Wild Beast and Its Mark

...

The Mark Identified

... Likewise, 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.

...