Pope vs. Gunowners

[Guest shiloh357]

" In the very first centuries, from the 1st onward, christians refused to be soldiers. They would have nothing to do with killing for any reason. Soldiers who became christians would put down their swords and refuse to fight. They were martyred. "



"Can you reconcile this with Shiloh's claim stating the pope's basement is stocked with weapons of murder? I have no knowledge if this is true, only nobody has disputed it. If christians should have nothing to do with killing, yet the religious leader of so many people has weapons, then we need some clarification. "

Why do they need reconciled ? They're not contradictory statements at all -- it's been true all through history, not just in the first centuries....

In addition to what Shiloh just said, you are claiming all through the centuries christians refused to be soldiers?  This infers all christians?  The statement sounds as if all christians refused to be soldiers, I would agree that some christians have refused to be soldiers, yet many soldiers are Christians.  Just struck me as being judgmental of who can be a Christian, maybe I read too much into this . . . 

No, the context was the first few centuries, starting with the 1st.  I said nothing about later centuries.

Okay so are Christians wrong for joining the military today?  Was it wrong for Christians to fight in the Revolutionary war?   Was it wrong for Christians to fight in WWII to defeat Hitler?   Is the Pope wrong for having an army full of well trained soldiers armed with weapons of war prepared to defend him??    Which moral code are you appealing to?  Are you appealing to the moral code of early Christians who you claim refused to be soldiers, or are you appealing to the moral code of a Pope who says it's wrong to make military grade "weapons of war"   but has no problem with having his own private army of soldiers defend him with those same "weapons of war?" 

[thereselittleflower]

" In the very first centuries, from the 1st onward, christians refused to be soldiers. They would have nothing to do with killing for any reason. Soldiers who became christians would put down their swords and refuse to fight. They were martyred. "



"Can you reconcile this with Shiloh's claim stating the pope's basement is stocked with weapons of murder? I have no knowledge if this is true, only nobody has disputed it. If christians should have nothing to do with killing, yet the religious leader of so many people has weapons, then we need some clarification. "

Why do they need reconciled ? They're not contradictory statements at all -- it's been true all through history, not just in the first centuries....

In addition to what Shiloh just said, you are claiming all through the centuries christians refused to be soldiers?  This infers all christians?  The statement sounds as if all christians refused to be soldiers, I would agree that some christians have refused to be soldiers, yet many soldiers are Christians.  Just struck me as being judgmental of who can be a Christian, maybe I read too much into this . . . 

No, the context was the first few centuries, starting with the 1st.  I said nothing about later centuries.

Okay so are Christians wrong for joining the military today?  Was it wrong for Christians to fight in the Revolutionary war?   Was it wrong for Christians to fight in WWII to defeat Hitler?   Is the Pope wrong for having an army full of well trained soldiers armed with weapons of war prepared to defend him??    Which moral code are you appealing to?  Are you appealing to the moral code of early Christians who you claim refused to be soldiers, or are you appealing to the moral code of a Pope who says it's wrong to make military grade "weapons of war"   but has no problem with having his own private army of soldiers defend him with those same "weapons of war?" 

What I'm saying is the issue is not as black and white, cut and dry as people like to make it appear.

Obviously views on both sides of the issues have been held in christianity and we should not be so quick to judge another believer on this issue.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

" In the very first centuries, from the 1st onward, christians refused to be soldiers. They would have nothing to do with killing for any reason. Soldiers who became christians would put down their swords and refuse to fight. They were martyred. "



"Can you reconcile this with Shiloh's claim stating the pope's basement is stocked with weapons of murder? I have no knowledge if this is true, only nobody has disputed it. If christians should have nothing to do with killing, yet the religious leader of so many people has weapons, then we need some clarification. "

Why do they need reconciled ? They're not contradictory statements at all -- it's been true all through history, not just in the first centuries....

In addition to what Shiloh just said, you are claiming all through the centuries christians refused to be soldiers?  This infers all christians?  The statement sounds as if all christians refused to be soldiers, I would agree that some christians have refused to be soldiers, yet many soldiers are Christians.  Just struck me as being judgmental of who can be a Christian, maybe I read too much into this . . . 

No, the context was the first few centuries, starting with the 1st.  I said nothing about later centuries.

Okay so are Christians wrong for joining the military today?  Was it wrong for Christians to fight in the Revolutionary war?   Was it wrong for Christians to fight in WWII to defeat Hitler?   Is the Pope wrong for having an army full of well trained soldiers armed with weapons of war prepared to defend him??    Which moral code are you appealing to?  Are you appealing to the moral code of early Christians who you claim refused to be soldiers, or are you appealing to the moral code of a Pope who says it's wrong to make military grade "weapons of war"   but has no problem with having his own private army of soldiers defend him with those same "weapons of war?" 

What I'm saying is the issue is not as black and white, cut and dry as people like to make it appear.

Obviously views on both sides of the issues have been held in christianity and we should not be so quick to judge another believer on this issue.

 

 

Yet, you are consistently making arguments that appear to be in favor of pacifism.   I am just curious how your arguments handle the fact that war has been necessary to create a peaceful war.   And that is why I am curious which moral code YOU are appealing to.

[thereselittleflower]

" In the very first centuries, from the 1st onward, christians refused to be soldiers. They would have nothing to do with killing for any reason. Soldiers who became christians would put down their swords and refuse to fight. They were martyred. "



"Can you reconcile this with Shiloh's claim stating the pope's basement is stocked with weapons of murder? I have no knowledge if this is true, only nobody has disputed it. If christians should have nothing to do with killing, yet the religious leader of so many people has weapons, then we need some clarification. "

Why do they need reconciled ? They're not contradictory statements at all -- it's been true all through history, not just in the first centuries....

In addition to what Shiloh just said, you are claiming all through the centuries christians refused to be soldiers?  This infers all christians?  The statement sounds as if all christians refused to be soldiers, I would agree that some christians have refused to be soldiers, yet many soldiers are Christians.  Just struck me as being judgmental of who can be a Christian, maybe I read too much into this . . . 

No, the context was the first few centuries, starting with the 1st.  I said nothing about later centuries.

Okay so are Christians wrong for joining the military today?  Was it wrong for Christians to fight in the Revolutionary war?   Was it wrong for Christians to fight in WWII to defeat Hitler?   Is the Pope wrong for having an army full of well trained soldiers armed with weapons of war prepared to defend him??    Which moral code are you appealing to?  Are you appealing to the moral code of early Christians who you claim refused to be soldiers, or are you appealing to the moral code of a Pope who says it's wrong to make military grade "weapons of war"   but has no problem with having his own private army of soldiers defend him with those same "weapons of war?" 

What I'm saying is the issue is not as black and white, cut and dry as people like to make it appear.

Obviously views on both sides of the issues have been held in christianity and we should not be so quick to judge another believer on this issue.

 

 

Yet, you are consistently making arguments that appear to be in favor of pacifism.   I am just curious how your arguments handle the fact that war has been necessary to create a peaceful war.   And that is why I am curious which moral code YOU are appealing to.

I think I've made arguments on both sides.

[Guest shiloh357]

" In the very first centuries, from the 1st onward, christians refused to be soldiers. They would have nothing to do with killing for any reason. Soldiers who became christians would put down their swords and refuse to fight. They were martyred. "



"Can you reconcile this with Shiloh's claim stating the pope's basement is stocked with weapons of murder? I have no knowledge if this is true, only nobody has disputed it. If christians should have nothing to do with killing, yet the religious leader of so many people has weapons, then we need some clarification. "

Why do they need reconciled ? They're not contradictory statements at all -- it's been true all through history, not just in the first centuries....

In addition to what Shiloh just said, you are claiming all through the centuries christians refused to be soldiers?  This infers all christians?  The statement sounds as if all christians refused to be soldiers, I would agree that some christians have refused to be soldiers, yet many soldiers are Christians.  Just struck me as being judgmental of who can be a Christian, maybe I read too much into this . . . 

No, the context was the first few centuries, starting with the 1st.  I said nothing about later centuries.

Okay so are Christians wrong for joining the military today?  Was it wrong for Christians to fight in the Revolutionary war?   Was it wrong for Christians to fight in WWII to defeat Hitler?   Is the Pope wrong for having an army full of well trained soldiers armed with weapons of war prepared to defend him??    Which moral code are you appealing to?  Are you appealing to the moral code of early Christians who you claim refused to be soldiers, or are you appealing to the moral code of a Pope who says it's wrong to make military grade "weapons of war"   but has no problem with having his own private army of soldiers defend him with those same "weapons of war?" 

What I'm saying is the issue is not as black and white, cut and dry as people like to make it appear.

Obviously views on both sides of the issues have been held in christianity and we should not be so quick to judge another believer on this issue.

 

 

Yet, you are consistently making arguments that appear to be in favor of pacifism.   I am just curious how your arguments handle the fact that war has been necessary to create a peaceful war.   And that is why I am curious which moral code YOU are appealing to.

I think I've made arguments on both sides.

Are you a pacifist or not?

[LadyKay]

I don't believe everything I read  or see on the internet. I just don't.

[LadyKay]

These guys are blessing rifles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first and second photos are russian. So they are russian orthodox. Not overseen by the pope. The third one is likely russian as well, but Im not sure on that. The fourth one looks greek orthodox to me. But Im not certain of that one either. I have no clue about the last one.

 

These are all Eastern Orthodox.

 

 

They look photo shop to me.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

These guys are blessing rifles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first and second photos are russian. So they are russian orthodox. Not overseen by the pope. The third one is likely russian as well, but Im not sure on that. The fourth one looks greek orthodox to me. But Im not certain of that one either. I have no clue about the last one.

 

These are all Eastern Orthodox.

 

 

They look photo shop to me.

Heres a couple more

 

I think the above looks photoshoped

 

Then there is this one

https://twitter.com/zygispavilionis/status/556263189290041344

 

Then this one

 

 

 

 

Theres quite a few, not sure if all of these are photshopped though

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

Heres a few

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Definately photoshopped here

 

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

" In the very first centuries, from the 1st onward, christians refused to be soldiers. They would have nothing to do with killing for any reason. Soldiers who became christians would put down their swords and refuse to fight. They were martyred. "



"Can you reconcile this with Shiloh's claim stating the pope's basement is stocked with weapons of murder? I have no knowledge if this is true, only nobody has disputed it. If christians should have nothing to do with killing, yet the religious leader of so many people has weapons, then we need some clarification. "

Why do they need reconciled ? They're not contradictory statements at all -- it's been true all through history, not just in the first centuries....

In addition to what Shiloh just said, you are claiming all through the centuries christians refused to be soldiers?  This infers all christians?  The statement sounds as if all christians refused to be soldiers, I would agree that some christians have refused to be soldiers, yet many soldiers are Christians.  Just struck me as being judgmental of who can be a Christian, maybe I read too much into this . . . 

No, the context was the first few centuries, starting with the 1st.  I said nothing about later centuries.

Okay so are Christians wrong for joining the military today?  Was it wrong for Christians to fight in the Revolutionary war?   Was it wrong for Christians to fight in WWII to defeat Hitler?   Is the Pope wrong for having an army full of well trained soldiers armed with weapons of war prepared to defend him??    Which moral code are you appealing to?  Are you appealing to the moral code of early Christians who you claim refused to be soldiers, or are you appealing to the moral code of a Pope who says it's wrong to make military grade "weapons of war"   but has no problem with having his own private army of soldiers defend him with those same "weapons of war?" 

What I'm saying is the issue is not as black and white, cut and dry as people like to make it appear.

Obviously views on both sides of the issues have been held in christianity and we should not be so quick to judge another believer on this issue.

 

 

Yet, you are consistently making arguments that appear to be in favor of pacifism.   I am just curious how your arguments handle the fact that war has been necessary to create a peaceful war.   And that is why I am curious which moral code YOU are appealing to.

I think I've made arguments on both sides.

Are you a pacifist or not?

No I'm not.