[quote]Joe Pears wrote:
� � � "The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection.� � Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5
Ã?Â
� � � "The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the military authority.� � G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of Pacifism) points out that ?until about the close of the third quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite consistently pacifist.?� Harnack?s conclusion is that no Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.4).� � After that time signs of compromise became increasingly evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the fourth century."6
Ã?Â
� � � "During its first three centuries of existence, the Christian church was opposed to war and others forms of violence.� � Christian opposition to war early expanded into a denial of rightness of all coercive action on the part of the civil power.� � Thus arose that form of conscientious objection which has been designated as political non-participation."7
Ã?Â
� � � "For many years many Christian regarded services in the army as inconsistent with their profession.� � Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or executioners, was unlawful."8
Ã?Â
Ã? Ã? Ã? "During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain…that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.Ã? Ã? These facts are indisputable: ?It is easy,? says a learned writer of the 17th century, ?to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny that the primitive Christian renounced all revenge and war.?Ã? Ã? Of all Christian writers of the second century, there is not one who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a Christian to bear arms."9
Ã?Â
� � � "Christ and his apostles delivered general precepts for the regulation of our conduct.� � It was necessary for their successors to apply them to their practice in life.� And to what did they apply the pacific precepts which had been delivered?� � They applied them to war; they were assured that the precepts absolutely forbade it.� This belief they derived from those very precepts on which we have insisted:� � They referred, expressly, to the same passages in the New Testament, and from the authority and obligation of those passages, they refused to bear arms.� � A few examples from their history will show with what undoubting confidence they believed in the unlawfulness of war, and how much they were willing to suffer in the cause of peace."10
Ã?Â
� � � "Our Savior inculcated mildness and peaceableness; we have seen that the apostles imbibed his spirit, and followed his example; and the early Christians pursued the example and imbibed the spirit both.� � This sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance, lenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age,� � There are more quotations in the apostolical fathers, of texts, which relate to these points than any other,� � Christ?s sayings had struck them."11
Ã?Â
Ã? Ã? Ã? “If it is possible, a still stronger evidence of the primitive belief is contained in the circumstance, that some of the Christian authors declared that the refusal of the Christian o bear arms, was a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. (Is 2:3; Mic 4:2)Ã? Ã? The peculiar strength of this evidence consists in this: that the fact of a refusal to bear arms is assumed as notorious and unquestioned.” [Regardless of the validity of the prophetic interpretation.]12
Ã?Â
"A very interesting sidelight is cast on the attitude of the early Christians to war by the serious view they took of those precepts of the Mater enjoining love for all, including enemies, and forbidding retaliation upon the wrongdoer, and the close and literal way in which they endeavored to obey them.� � This view and this obedience of those first followers of Jesus are the best commentary we can have upon the problematic teaching in question, and the best answer we can give to those who argue that it was not meant to be practiced save in a perfect society , or that it refers only to the inner disposition of the heart and not to the outward actions, or that it concerns only personal and private and not the social and political relationship of life."13
� � � B.� � Affirmation of Early Church Orders
Ã?Â
� � � 1.� � THE DIDASKALIA
Ã?Â
� � � � � "The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church ?from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment,? etc."14
Ã?Â
� � � 2.� � THE TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD
Ã?Â
Ã? Ã? Ã? Ã? "The Testament of our Lord,? which dates in its present form from the middle of the fourth century or a little later, arose among the conservative Christians of Syria or southeastern Asia Minor."Ã? Ã? It embodies a list of rules and regulations governing the "acceptance of new members into the Church and (deals) with the question of the trades and professions which it is legitimate or otherwise for Church-members to follow.Ã? Ã? It will be observed that…?The Testament of Our Lord? is consistently rigorous in refusing baptism to soldiers and magistrates except on condition of their quitting their offices, and forbidding a Christian to become a soldier on pain of rejection (from the Church):
Ã?Â
� � � � "If anyone be a soldier or in authority, let him be taught not to oppress or to kill or o rob, or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone.� � But let those rations suffice him which are given to him.� � But if they wish to be baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the post of authority, and if not let them not be received.� � Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected.� � For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt."15
Ã?Â
� � � 3.� � THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA
Ã?Â
"The canons of the Church of Alexandria absolutely forbade volunteering, which was the foundation of the Roman Army, and authoritatively laid I down that ?it was not fitting for Christians to bear arms.?"16
� � � C. Writings of Early Christian Leaders
Ã?Â
� � � CHRISTIAN CONDEMNATION OF WAR
Ã?Â
� � � "The view was widely prevalent in the early Church that war is an organized iniquity with which the Church and the followers of Christ can have nothing to do.� � This sentiment was expressed, though with varying degrees of lucidity and emphasis, by Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origenes, Athanasius, Cyprian, and Lactantius."17
Ã?Â
ARISTEIDES� (HE) "says of the Christians: ?They appeal to those who wrong them and make them friendly to themselves; they are eager to do good to their enemies; they are mild and conciliatory.?"18
Ã?Â
ARNOBIUS (300 A.D.)Ã? "The treatise of Arnobius abounds in allusions tot he moral iniquity of war.Ã? Contrasting Christ with the rulers of the Roman Empire, he asks: "Did he, claiming royal power for himself, occupy the whole world with fierce legions, and, (of) nations at peace from beginning, destroy and remove some, and compel others to put their necks beneath his yoke and obey him?? "?What use is it to the world that there should be…generals of the greatest experience in warfare, skilled in the capture of cities, (and) soldiers immovable and invincible in cavalry battles or in a fight on foot??Ã? Ã? Arnobius roundly denies that it was any part of the divine purpose that men?s souls, ?forgetting that they are from one source, one parent and head, should tear up and break down the right of kinship, overturn their cities, devastate lands in enmity…hate one another… in a word, all curse, carp at, and rend one another with the biting of savage teeth.? "Addressing himself to the pagans, he says: "Since We…(christians) have received (it) from his (Christ?s) teachings and laws, that evil ought not to be repaid with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than to inflict (it), to shed one?s own (blood) rather than to stain one?s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from Christ…But if absolutely all…were willing to lend an ear for a little while to his healthful and peaceful decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to their own senses rather than to his admonitions, the whole world would long ago have turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living in the softest tranquillity, and would have come together in healthy concord…? "(HE) speaks as if abstention from warfare had been the traditional Christian policy ever since the advent of Christ."19
Ã?Â
CLEMENT� "In the third century Clement of Alexandria contrasted war-like pagans with the peaceful community of Christians.?"20 "Clement of Alexandria calls his Christian contemporaries the ?Followers of Peace,? and expressly tells us that ?the followers of peace used none of the implements of war.?"21 "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings.� � For (it is) not those who abstain from evil by compulsion, but those (who abstain) by choice, (that) God crowns.� � For it is not possible for a man to be good steadily except by his own choice."22
Ã?Â
CYPRIANUS (250 A.D.)� "Cyprianus declaims about the ?wars scattered everywhere with the bloody horror of camps.� � The world, ?he says, ?is wet with mutual blood (shed) :and homicide is a crime when individuals commit it, (but) it is called a virtue, when it is carried on publicly.� � Not the reason of innocence, but the magnitude of savagery, demands impunity for crimes.? He censures also the vanity and deceitful pomp of the military office."23
Ã?Â
IRENAEUS (180 A.D.)� "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24
Ã?Â
JUSTINUS (150 A.D.)Ã? “Justinus told the Emperors that the Christians were the best allies and helpers they had in promoting peace, on the ground that their belief in future punishment and in the omniscience of God provided a stronger deterrent from wrongdoing than any laws could do.” “We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all.” "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."25
Ã?Â
JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.)� "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."27
Ã?Â
LACTANTIUS (300 A.D.)Ã? "Lactantius also, in his Divine Institutes, again and again alludes to the prevalence of war as one of the greatest blots on the history and morals of humanity.Ã? Ã? Speaking of the Romans, he says: ?Truly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and) slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of excellence of their crimes…If any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked, nor do they think I right that he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods.Ã? Ã? But he who has slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, (and) infected rivers (with it), is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven.? "In criticizing the definition of virtue as that which puts first the advantages of one?s own country, (he says): ?All which things are certainly not virtues, but the overthrowing of virtues.Ã? Ã? For, in the first place, the connection of human society is taken away; for justice cannot bear the cutting asunder of the human race, and wherever arms glitter, she must be put to flight and banished…For how can he be just, who injures, hates, despoils, kills?Ã? Ã? And those who strive to be of advantage to their country (in this way) do all these things.? "If God alone were worshipped, there would not be dissentions and wars; for men would know that they are sons of the one God, and so joined together by the sacred and inviolable bond of divine kinship; there would be no plots, for they would know what sort of punishments God has prepared for those who kill living beings."28 "And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier-for justice itself is his military service-… And so, in this it is always wrong to kill a man whom God has wished to be a sacrosanct creature."29 "There cannot be a thousand exceptions to God?s commandments: Thou shalt not kill.Ã? Ã? No arm save truth should be carried by Christians."30
Ã?Â
LUCIFER� "Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, professed that the Christians should defend heir greatest possession, faith, not in killing, but in sacrificing their own lives."31
[/quote]
You may know how to copy and paste, but you don’t know shit about Christianity. It’s not our job to educate you. You’re simply motivated by hate, and mine websites to gain ammo, with no regard for understanding or truth. You’re not worth anybody’s time, I am sad that people bother to engage your tripe. You are the intolerant, you are the extremist, you are the unfair, you are the weak.
