Hope of seeing relatives again??

mijt1 · Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:53 am Post subject:

Reply to AP

Hi AP

Van · Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:09 pm Post subject: churches supporting the holicast

Christian churches did not do enough to address anti Jewish thoughts within the culture of America and Europe. The Churches did not do enough to confront Hitler's madness. But, on the other hand, to dismiss the efforts, feeble as they were, as somehow knowingly condoning genocide is a tad over the top.

Here is an except on the subject which provides, a differing viewpoint:

From the beginning of Hitler's regime, the ecumenical Christian movement (its central offices were located in Geneva, London and New York) strongly condemned developments in Nazi Germany that threatened the independence of Christian Churches and the safety of Jews. On May 26 and 29, 1933, twelve hundred American clergymen from 26 different Christian denominations sponsored an advertisement in The New York Times condemning anti-Jewish activities in Nazi Germany. Leaders of the Federal Council of Churches (a Protestant group), located in the United States, sent angry letters in 1933 to their colleagues in the German Churches, demanding public statements denouncing Nazi policies. Between 1933 and 1945, there were six major statements from the leaders of Churches in this country and in Europe (outside the Third Reich) that specifically condemned anti-Semitism and the Nazi persecution of Jews. (Among the officials involved were the Archbishop of Canterbury and Samuel Cavert and Henry Smith Leiper of the Federal Council of Churches in New York.) In November 1938, the three leading Protestant ecumenical organizations in Geneva, Switzerland, issued a statement castigating "antisemitism in all its forms" and urging governments to permit more Jewish refugees to enter their countries. In the United States in December 1938, the Federal Council of Churches and the U.S. Catholic bishops issued a joint condemnation of Kristallnacht, which had occurred a month earlier. (It was the first Protestant/Catholic joint statement on a social issue in this country.) In December 1942, after reports of genocide began to reach the Allied countries, the Federal Council of Churches passed a resolution protesting the "virtual massacre" of Europe's Jews. This was followed by similar protests from the Anglican Church in England and a joint statement by Protestant ecumenical leaders and the World Jewish Congress in Geneva. In Great Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, gave an impassioned speech in March 1943 in the House of Lords, demanding an immediate end to immigration quotas and an increase in Allied aid to countries that offered refuge to Jews. In a 1983 speech delivered at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Gerhardt Riegner, the director of the World Jewish Congress in Geneva during the war (and a man who had participated in efforts to rescue Jews from the Nazis), said that, during the Holocaust, "the human understanding, friendship, and the helping hand" of his Protestant ecumenical colleagues "were the only signs of light in the darkness that surrounded us."

And lest we forget, in a field near Normandy, stand thousands of white crosses - Americans willing to die to stop Hitler's madness.

metothezero · Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 10:45 pm Post subject:

Mijt,

Hey sorry for the delay on not getting back with you sooner, I still would love to talk with you...

A little suggestion, when you are quoting someone, as you did in your last post, if you past their words onto your reply, highlight their words and then press the button towards the top that says 'quote' and it will make it easier for everyone to understand your posts...just a suggestion, it would help out ALOT.

Van, my friend (i guess you would consider me your friend, despite my Calvanistic heresies...) I've been thinking about your this break, I've been reading a book that I think you would enjoy, it is called 'Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views', it is Four differing Theologians Viewpoints on the Foreknowledge of God, it has the Open-Theistic View, Middle-Knowledge View, Simple Foreknowledge View, and the Augustinian-Calvinistic View. Each Author has an essay presenting their view then afterwards there is a response from the other Three. Your doctrine of Foreknowledge sounds very much like the Open-Theistic view...God doesn't know the future, either by choice or by limitation. His name is Greg Boyd, there is also a man named Clark Pinnock who is pretty much the voice for the View today. I know there has been alot of commotion over this new view in our convention, as well as in the Evangelical Theological Society, there was a big uproar a short while ago. But I think you would pretty much agree with his teachings. While I do not agree with his teachings, I have still read his work, he has not convinced me though. May I suggest another book for you??? It is labeled 'Their God is Too Small' by Bruce Ware, it is a refutation of this doctrine, I own it currently, and would be interested in your viewpoints on what he says in the book. I like to read differing viewpoints on the subjects, didn't know if you did as well...OK, now that has nothing to do with the Witnesses, but I thought I would inject that for thought, because I was being lazy and didn't want to PM... Smile

apostonaut · Tadpole Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Hi there mijt1,

I'm in Canada and yes I've only had the Witnesses at my door once in five years. Sure it is possible that they've been here while I've been out, but my point was to contrast this with the amount of Christian witnessing that I encounter. As I mentioned, books and journals, radio and television, newspaper articles, online discussions. I think it is unfair to suggest that Christians are not witnessing or speaking about their faith simply because they don't use the same method of witnessing (i.e. door knocking) as the JWs.

Nobby · Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:44 pm Post subject: Note from admin. Please Read?

Note please read. This is a note to newbie's as well as oldies as well.

I read this thread through, & have of the time I wasn't sure which one of you had typed the text. Some times it's impossible to till when some was being quoted, or that they were speaking. You can't always tell when the Quote ends, & the answer begins.

If nothing else use a small --------- as the end.
-----------------
Or
Qoute: Username (at the beginning)
-----------------
If you're still quoting the same one.
just type Quote:
-------------------

I would like that everyone would learn the BB Code. It is very easy to use, if an old man like me can learn it I know all of you can. It makes your Posts look alot better & much easier to read.

On this page where you type your posts, to the left side of the page, you will see OPTIONS under it click on BB Code.

All of you guys no how to edit. Could I at least ask you to edit, to show who is talking.
I wouldn't ask, but hundreds of people read this board every week! I have had as many as 5 guests on here at once. We want everyone to be able to read them clearly. Wink

Don't We

mijt1 · Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:29 pm Post subject:

It's been good conversing with you AP
Hope we can do it again sometime

Mick

apostonaut · Tadpole Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Hi Mick,

Yes it has been a good discussion. Are you cutting it short then? I thought you would do some research on my questions regarding the New Testament view of warfare and get back to me. Should I not hold my breath?

At the least, are you willing to answer this one question of mine?

"But Cornelius, a soldier in the Italian Regiment, _was_ baptized as a Christian. My question is why is it different for Jehovah's Witnesses? Why was the apostle Peter willing to baptize a soldier but Jehovah's Witnesses are not?"

Do you consider the New Testament (first-century) church to be the model for the modern-day church? If so, should not any differences between the first-century church and our own church today be matters of serious concern?

Kind regards,

Ap.

mijt1 · Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:32 am Post subject:

mijt1 · Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:55 pm Post subject:

Hello Ap

I realise this does not answer your question but I'm still researching.
This is what I have turned up so far.
Also i found some stuff from non JW sources about the holocaust and Jw's
There are quotes from Jewish sources and the holocaust museum.
I didnt paste anything in as we did close this subject but just thought you might like a look. I hope the links work I have never tried sending one before.

http://jehovah.to/general/nazi/
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/jehovah.html

As to serving in the armed forces, what does secular history disclose about the attitude of early Christians?

Regarding political involvement, what do secular historians report as being
the attitude of those known as early Christians?“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.

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.” (“Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” by F. P. G. Guizot 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.

metothezero · Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:07 am Post subject:

Pardon the interuption, but what point exaclty is attempting to be made here? Is it that Christians should or should not engage in warfare? Is that a true sign of a true church, whether or not they do engage in warfare? I know the Witnesses do not allow it, do they Mijt? The Seventh-Day, as well as Quakers and Minnonites aren't allowed to participate in warfare either. Personally, I think it is a good moral, I do not think it is Biblically condmened, but what of it, it is not that exclusive to one Religion, so it cannot be that much of a distinguishing factor as to the Truth of God or not, can it?

apostonaut · Tadpole Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Hi again Mick,

Thanks for posting the info - I found it to be an interesting read. My questions still remain, however. There are a number of accounts in the NT that reveal the acceptance of military service ("be content with your pay"), including the baptism of a centurion in the "Italian Regiment". Of course this is in complete opposition to WTS policy of refusing baptism to anyone in military service.

I should point out, in case I've not been clear, I am not suggesting that Christians _should_ or _must_ go to war. My view is that the decision must be reached by the individual Christian, and I would suggest that this was (and is) the case both before and after Aurelius. My primary concern is with the Jehovah's Witnesses withholding baptism (which is actually withholding salvation, since only JWs will be saved, right?) from someone in military service despite the NT record. I can't see a biblical basis for such an inflexible position.

QUOTE:
"The Seventh-Day, as well as Quakers and Minnonites aren't allowed to participate in warfare either. Personally, I think it is a good moral, I do not think it is Biblically condmened, but what of it, it is not that exclusive to one Religion, so it cannot be that much of a distinguishing factor as to the Truth of God or not, can it?"

Wanted to make mention of this quote by metothezero. I tried to make a similar point, but probably not as succinctly. Thanks.

Kind regards,

Ap.

RAFAEL_THE_ANGEL · Not So Newbie Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 8

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6817 Location: USA

Actually it says: Thou shalt not commit murder

Quite a different thing than killing, since killing would by definition include the cessation of life for anything that lives - animals, humans, plants, microbes...

we would starve to death if we were commanded not to kill... oh wait... starving to death would be killing, can't do that either, can we?

jhavali · Newbie Alert Joined: 21 Dec 2005 Posts: 2

How is a Salvation a Guarantee?

jhavali · Newbie Alert Joined: 21 Dec 2005 Posts: 2

How is a Salvation a Guarantee?