16 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyits a very astute observation Whodey. i really do think the time shall come when Muslims shall realise that their religious clergy has led them astray. At the moment they have such a powerful control of peoples lives, but it shall be like Ireland was, the deception and abuse shall manifest itself and the religious organisation shall loose their grip.
I will just say that this is what happens when people succumb to statism. Christiandom has learned the hard lesson of creating theocracies and having the populace told what God wishes instead of pursuing God himself. In short, anyone who trusts fallen man above a holy God will continue to be used as their tool. Unfortunatly, the Muslim world has not learne ...[text shortened]... have been around far longer. After all, Charles Russell started the whole thing in the 1870's
16 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou are entitled to your beliefs Jaywill and may express them freely. The clear admonition of scripture is to get out of false religion, is it not? For it stands condemned,
[b]==================================
wrong we have absolutely nothing to do with Christendom and have tried in every way to distance ourselves from it.
===================================
I think it is arguable. Jehovah's Witnesses come to the doorstep and enthusiastically try to affirm that they are indeed Christians.
"Oh we be nd purporting them to be what the New Testament really teaches is another.[/b]
(Revelation 18:4) . . .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, . . .
a reference to Babylon the great, world empire of false religion, of which i think Christendom is a major part. How can i say this? well look at the scripture and look at the legacy,
(Revelation 18:9) . . .“And the kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her. . .
the scripture is of course a reference to the political rulers, 'the Kings of the earth', and how this world empire of false religion has committed fornication, by faithlessly disowning the teachings of the Christ and meddling in the political process. The kings have shamelessly used this false entity to suppress and subdue persons, the clergy sending innocent young men to their deaths.
In many lands there has been and even now is a union of Church and State. In such ‘marriages’ the Church has endeavoured to do the dictating. The clergy have controlled the thinking of the people to a great extent, and the political rulers, knowing this, have accorded the clergy authority, prestige, protection and immunities, financial support, and so forth.
Concerning “Church and State,” The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 6, pages 657, 658, says:
“Between these two institutions, in modern times, there has rarely, if ever, existed perfect harmony. This struggle, so long protracted, bids fair, unless some astonishing upheaval occurs, to last for all time. It has been a bitter one. It has involved large interests and brought to the forefront momentous discussions. It has fomented uprisings of all kinds and originated a literature of vituperation without parallel outside of political strife. It has been, not seldom, mere political contention. . . . Under Constantine the Church entered the arena of universal activity as a collaborator in the task of civilizing the peoples. Acknowledged as the spiritual ruler, it gradually acquired a local habitation and a name as a temporal potentate. It became a world power. This success was the beginning of all the many disasters of the Church. . . . From Constantine to Charlemagne the civil power, while giving legal recognition to the Church, interfered in its government. From Charlemagne to a period approaching that of the Reformation, Church and state were closely united and there was a generally acknowledged subordination of the civil to the spiritual authority.”
In this twentieth century, the situation has continued. Wars have been fought over religious issues, and the greatest, most gory, devastating World Wars have been fought, Christendom’s nations taking the lead with the most murderous weapons.
you may attack our doctrines all you like, Christ is interested in actions, for it is those who are 'doing', the will of the father that will survive. What is Christendoms legacy saying about it?
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
You are entitled to your beliefs Jaywill and may express them freely. The clear admonition of scripture is to get out of false religion, is it not? For it stands condemned,
(Revelation 18:4) . . .And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “[b]Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, . . .
a reference ng', the will of the father that will survive. What is Christendoms legacy saying about it?[/b]
You are entitled to your beliefs Jaywill and may express them freely. The clear admonition of scripture is to get out of false religion, is it not? For it stands condemned,
======================================
You may get out of false religion. False religion will not so easily get out of you.
We believers are called to be in Christ, not simply get out of false religion. False religion is in your flesh which loves it. Walking in the Spirit consistently is really the only way out. You are not getting off to too impressive a start by denying that the Holy Spirit is God (John 4:24)
=====================================
(Revelation 18:4) . . .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, . . .
=================================
Amen. "COME out of her my people ...". I think Russell must have derived some of his ideas from the Brethren who expounded Revelation in the 19th century. I think Russell must have taken some things which he felt were useful and inserted his own heretical ideas which were a rehash of Arius.
===================================
a reference to Babylon the great, world empire of false religion, of which i think Christendom is a major part. How can i say this? well look at the scripture and look at the legacy,
==================================
I am very conversant on the book of Revelation. I assure you that I could keep you reading hundreds of posts expounding every chapter of Revelation.
The point for me is that Babylon either material or religious is no excuse for the heretical antichrist gospel of another Jesus presented by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
You can enumerate pages and pages of sins of Babylon. It does not excuse your antichrist teaching of polytheism - Jehovah and a lesser God called the Logos.
You can list the sins of Babylon until you are blue in the face. Daniel was in Babylon in the Old Testament. I would rather have Daniel's God and Daniel's revelation in Babylon then worship Baal in the good land.
Actually, we can have both, the escape from religious confusion of Babylon AND the living real Christ. That is even better. And that is what we have in the Lord's recovery.
=================================
(Revelation 18:9) . . .“And the kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her. . .
==================================
Yes, it says that too. Are you expecting me to blush ?
===============================
the scripture is of course a reference to the political rulers, 'the Kings of the earth', and how this world empire of false religion has committed fornication, by faithlessly disowning the teachings of the Christ and meddling in the political process. The kings have shamelessly used this false entity to suppress and subdue persons, the clergy sending innocent young men to their deaths.
===================================
Are you suggesting that a professional soldier cannot be a disciple of Jesus Christ ? I do not agree with that.
I think a person in that line of work, in that social status - a professional soldier, can also be a disciple of Jesus Christ and an overcoming one at that.
I am not condoning the church mixed up with politics. I am just saying that there is nothing in the New Testament teaching that a soldier sent to the battlefield cannot also be a disciple of Jesus Christ.
=============================
In many lands there has been and even now is a union of Church and State. In such ‘marriages’ the Church has endeavoured to do the dictating. The clergy have controlled the thinking of the people to a great extent, and the political rulers, knowing this, have accorded the clergy authority, prestige, protection and immunities, financial support, and so forth.
====================================
Where I meet we do not practice the clergy / laity system.
We have hardly enough time to expound on all the unsearchable riches of Christ to talk about anything else. Exploring the endless gold mine of who Jesus Christ is keeps us occupied all the time. We have no time to get into politics. We are to busy enjoying all the riches of Christ's Person as the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
======================
Concerning “Church and State,” The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 6, pages 657, 658, says:
“Between these two institutions, in modern times, there has rarely, if ever, existed perfect harmony. This struggle, so long protracted, bids fair, unless some astonishing upheaval occurs, to last for all time. It has been a bitter one. It has involved large interests and brought to the forefront momentous discussions. It has fomented uprisings of all kinds and originated a literature of vituperation without parallel outside of political strife. It has been, not seldom, mere political contention. . . . Under Constantine the Church entered the arena of universal activity as a collaborator in the task of civilizing the peoples. Acknowledged as the spiritual ruler, it gradually acquired a local habitation and a name as a temporal potentate. It became a world power. This success was the beginning of all the many disasters of the Church. . . . From Constantine to Charlemagne the civil power, while giving legal recognition to the Church, interfered in its government. From Charlemagne to a period approaching that of the Reformation, Church and state were closely united and there was a generally acknowledged subordination of the civil to the spiritual authority.”
====================================
As I said, we have hardly enough time to expound and explore all the unsearchable riches of Christ to spend time listing the sins of Church and State unions.
Notice that you do not talk about Christ very much. You are good at talking about religious degradation. This does not really feed people's inner hunger that much. they listen to you go on and on about Babylon and they come away thirsting for spiritual life.
You want to fight against Babylon ? Start to experience the unsearchable riches of Christ and minister those boundless riches to people. Feed the sheep with Christ.
Don't spend all your energy feeding them with the sins of Babylon. That doesn't help that much. Feed them the rich, sweet, all inclusive, and bountiful extensive Jesus Christ as the moment by moment grace of life.
I meet with brothers and sisters who know how to serve up a feast of Christ. Saying something about Babylon may be necessary. But going on and on and on and on about Babylon the Great is not all that helpful. It just leaves people bothered, uneasy, and thirsty for spiritual life.
Would that you experienced Christ and knew how to minister to God's people Christ as the apostles did.
17 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWhat is it about sending countless millions of persons to their death in futile wars you are missing Jaywill? Why would a representative of the 'prince of peace do that'? tell the forum Jaywill, why would an ambassador of peace do that? Why are the churches of Christendom, even to this very day filled with acts of bloodshed? tell the forum Jay will why is that? They make a mockery of Christ, the prince of peace!
[b]======================================
You are entitled to your beliefs Jaywill and may express them freely. The clear admonition of scripture is to get out of false religion, is it not? For it stands condemned,
======================================
You may get out of false religion. False religion will not so easily get out of you.
rienced Christ and knew how to minister to God's people Christ as the apostles did.[/b]
Before the great apostasy, of which you are an advocate as is evidenced from your Hellenistic beliefs, a Christian did not hold a political position, for his faith was in Gods Kingdom, a Christian was not a soldier, for he held killing to be wrong. I am amazed at one who professes to be a Christian, a representative of the 'prince of peace', advocates that a soldier, essentially trained for killing and warfare, can also be a Christian, for its that attitude, devoid of holy spirit and scriptural understanding , which wiped out almost two generations in Europe and elsewhere. A follower of 'the prince of peace????', those who engage in war mock the Christ and impale him again a second time!
“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”—The Rise of Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.
“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,—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.”—Justin Martyr in “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (2nd century C.E.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; reprint of 1885 Edinburgh edition), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. I, p. 254.
“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.”—History of Christianity (New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.
“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.
“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168.
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat about the rest of the post? I objected to the fact that JW's have not been around very long. In fact, they came into existence long after Christian theocracies existed. If they had not, mark my words, they would have had just as much blood on their hands.
its a very astute observation Whodey. i really do think the time shall come when Muslims shall realise that their religious clergy has led them astray. At the moment they have such a powerful control of peoples lives, but it shall be like Ireland was, the deception and abuse shall manifest itself and the religious organisation shall loose their grip.
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeynope, that is where you are wrong, for we were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps because we would not take up arms against our fellow humans.
What about the rest of the post? I objected to the fact that JW's have not been around very long. In fact, they came into existence long after Christian theocracies existed. If they had not, mark my words, they would have had just as much blood on their hands.
Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, doctrines and practices have engendered controversy and opposition from the local governments, communities, or religious groups. Persecution has been a recurrent experience of Jehovah's Witnesses since its foundation. Ken Jubber writes that "Viewed globally, this persecution has been so persistent and of such an intensity that it would not be inaccurate to regard Jehovah's witnesses as the most persecuted religion of the twentieth century".[1] Many Christian denominations consider their interpretations and doctrines to be heresy. Some religious leaders have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of being a cult. According to law professor Archibald Cox, in the United States, Jehovah's Witnesses were "the principal victims of religious persecution... in the twentieth century... Although founded earlier, they began to attract attention and provoke repression in the 1930s, when their proselytizing and numbers rapidly increased."[2]
Political and religious animosity against Jehovah's Witnesses has at times led to mob action and government oppression in various countries, including Cuba, the United States, Canada and Nazi Germany. The religion's doctrine of political neutrality has led to imprisonment of members who refused conscription (for example in Britain during World War II and afterwards during the period of compulsory national service). During the World Wars, Jehovah's Witnesses were also targeted in the United States, Canada and many other countries for their refusal to serve in the military or help with war efforts. In Canada, Jehovah's Witnesses were interned in camps along with political dissidents and people of Japanese and Chinese descent. Activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have previously been banned in the Soviet Union and in Spain, partly due to their refusal to perform military service. Their religious activities are currently banned or restricted in some countries, for example in China, Vietnam, and many Islamic states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
http://www.wri-irg.org/node/2564 - Korea
http://www.jw-media.org/arm/20100301rpt.htm - Armenia
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe incompatibility I refer to is between the definition you have now given ammanion ie "those institutions which claim to be Christian" and the phrase "Christendoms legacy".
there is nothing confusing or incompatible about it. in fact if i really wanted to i would ask you to point out the incompatibilities, but at the risk of getting involved in another petty side issue with practically no relevance, i desist.
It is ridiculous and dishonest to claim that "those institutions which claim to be Christian" all have the "legacy" that you describe. You might be able to find a connection between some "institutions which claim to be Christian" and some of the "legacies" you describe, but you were far more general than that.
17 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadits ridiculous and dishonest to claim that the term Christendom refers to anything but a general collective term. If you dont know what you are talking about, dont project your ignorance upon others. Equally ridiculous and dishonest is your claim that only 'some', of Christendom were involved in those world wars, in fact let us take the first and second world wars as an example, i ask you to name any, if you please, that were not involved.
The incompatibility I refer to is between the definition you have now given ammanion ie "those institutions which claim to be Christian" and the phrase "Christendoms legacy".
It is ridiculous and dishonest to claim that "those institutions which claim to be Christian" all have the "legacy" that you describe. You might be able to find a connection between n" and some of the "legacies" you describe, but you were far more general than that.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet me restate what I am saying. The JW"s were started in the 1870's and since that time there have been NO Christian theocracies. Therefore, wars have not been carried out in the name of God to my recolection since the last Christian theocracy bit the dust. However, if JW's had been around during, lets say, the Middle Ages when Christian theocracies abounded then they would have participated just the same in wars waged in the name of God. One of the most effective ways to coerce believers was to keep them ignorant of the scriptures. Martin Luther was one of the first to begin reforms and end the ignorance regarding Christs teachings. He was outraged regarding the doctrine of buying ones way out of "purgatory" which is direcly contradictory to scripture. This was the beginning of the end for Christian theocracies around the world.
[b]nope, that is where you are wrong, for we were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps because we would not take up arms against our fellow humans.
I think what you are saying is that even though there were no theocracies during WW2 that some Christians used the Bible to justify killing nazis. That may be but these soldiers were not waging war in the name of God and were not ignorant of the teachings of Christ which, incidently, does not prohibit being in the military. In fact, if I recall Christ was dumbfounded by a soldier who, according to him, displayed the greatest faith in Israel.
Just out of curioisty, how would you have fought the Nazis? Do you think God would have preferred that we lay down our arms and let them wipe out the Jews and cleanse any other racial undesirables?
17 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyi dont know how you would have fought the Nazis Whodey, that is for you to decide, we did not fight them, rather we gave up our own lives rather than take another's, seems like me to be the Christian thing to do, for we are not without hope towards God that he shall protect us and even if we suffer death we have hope towards God that we may be resurrected. You may of course beg to differ.
Let me restate what I am saying. The JW"s were started in the 1870's and since that time there have been NO Christian theocracies. Therefore, wars have not been carried out in the name of God to my recolection since the last Christian theocracy bit the dust. However, if JW's had been around during, lets say, the Middle Ages when Christian theocracies aboun lay down our arms and let them wipe out the Jews and cleanse any other racial undesirables?
Your assertions of course are completely without foundation, for we the same scriptural understanding as they early christians, who also would not participate in war nor serve in the army. We have proven our allegiance to the Christ's teachings, to 'return the sword to its place', through baptisms of fire, and we have proven, even until death, that we shall adhere to those teachings, even at personal expense to ourselves. Is that not what Christianity is about, self sacrificing love for others, correct me if i am wrong.
As for the teachings of Christ and the other Bible writers, they are diametrically opposed to warfare.
(Matthew 26:52) . . .Then Jesus said to him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
(Isaiah 2:3-4) . . .: “Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot only am I not aware of doing so, but I don't see why I would be wrong to do so. Nobody owns words and I can use them however I like so long as I explain what I mean at the time.
its ridiculous and dishonest to claim that the term Christendom refers to anything but a general collective term.
If you dont know what you are talking about, dont project your ignorance upon others.
Again, where did I do any such thing?
Equally ridiculous and dishonest is your claim that only 'some', of Christendom were involved in those world wars, in fact let us take the first and second world wars as an example, i ask you to name any, if you please, that were not involved.
Unless I am mistaken, you include the current government of the Republic of Zambia as being part of "Christendom". Is that correct?
If so, it could not have been involved in those world wars as it did not exist at the time.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do not believe that it is impossible to be a believer and Christ and a professional soldier who is hired to defend and fight for his country.
i dont know how you would have fought the Nazis Whodey, that is for you to decide, we did not fight them, rather we gave up our own lives rather than take another's, seems like me to be the Christian thing to do, for we are not without hope towards God that he shall protect us and even if we suffer death we have hope towards God that we may be resurr ...[text shortened]... g shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.
The Apostle Paul instructed the believers in Corinth to abide in the social status in which they were called:
"Each one, in the calling in which he was called, in this let him remain.
Were you called as a slave? Let it not concern you; but even if you are able to become free, use [your status as a slave] rather.
For the slave who has been called in the Lord is the Lord's fredman; likewise the free man who has been called is Christ's slave.
You were bought with a price; do not be slaves of men.
Each one, brothers, in what [status] he was called, in this let him remain with God." (1 Cor. 7:20-24) [/b]
The specific social statuses in this teaching do not mention soldier. But I think the teaching would include other social statuses besides the ones specifically mentioned here.
If called to follow Christ when in the armed forces, do not think it is mandatory that you give that status up. You may remain in it - a professional soldier. You were called to God in that state. You may remain in that state.
I do not think this is legal. If one feels to leave that profession there is the freedom to do so. But it should not be considered a commandment of God that is mandatory.
Do you understand ? You are called to God in a certain social status. You may remain and not feel condemned. It is not legal. As much as is possible with you live in peace with all men.
You are making a commandment though, a legality. That is not right. The soldier who becomes a Christian disciple may remain in that social status without condemnation.
17 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThe 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.”
I do not believe that it is impossible to be a believer and Christ and a professional soldier who is hired to defend and fight for his country.
The Apostle Paul instructed the believers in Corinth to abide in the social status in which they were called:
"Each one, in the calling in which he was called, in this let him remain.
Were you called as dier who becomes a Christian disciple may remain in that social status without condemnation.
How different the course of history would have been had all those who claimed to be Christians actually followed this teaching!
Matt. 26:52: “Jesus said to him: ‘Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.’” (Could there have been any higher cause for which to fight than to safeguard the Son of God? Yet, Jesus here indicated that those disciples were not to resort to weapons of physical warfare.)
Isa. 2:2-4: “It must occur in the final part of the days that the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains . . . And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” (Individuals out of all nations must personally decide what course they will pursue. Those who have heeded Jehovah’s judgment give evidence that he is their God.)
2 Cor. 10:3, 4: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare 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.” (Paul here states that he never resorted to fleshly weapons, such as trickery, high-sounding language, or carnal weapons, to protect the congregation against false teachings.)
Luke 6:27, 28: “I [Jesus Christ] say to you who are listening, Continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you.”