The author of this blog makes a claim that the asteroid belt in space was formed from the remains of the planet that was destroyed when war arose between Michael and Lucifer, and some of the craters on the moon too. >It's possible the fifth planet (now the asteroid belt) was destroyed and many of the craters visible on the Moon's surface were caused at that time. (Subsection Title: Rebellion) Is there any Biblical basis that supports this claim?

**Does the Russian Orthodox Church actively support Putin and his war in Ukraine?** I have heard that the Russian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch Krill is actually supporting Putin and his war on Ukraine. Is there any evidence to support this? Yes or no, how is the patriarchy handling this issue? See these YouTube videos: - Ukrainian priests of Moscow Patriarchate call to ban Russian religious doctrine - How Putin uses the Orthodox Church to boost his power

Our local Church (Eastern Europe) has tradition to recite the following Litany (GPT translation in English): > Litany of Supplication – Holy God Holy God, Holy Mighty God, Holy > Eternal God, have mercy on us! From plague, famine, war, and fire, > deliver us, O Lord and God! From an evil and sudden death, save us, O > Lord and God! Govern and sustain Your holy Church, we beseech You, O > Lord and God! Grant us the grace of true repentance, we beseech You, O > Lord and God! Strengthen and sustain us in Your holy service, we > beseech You, O Lord and God! Protect and bless our homeland, we > beseech You, O Lord and God! Grant and sustain the fruits of the > earth, we beseech You, O Lord and God! We, sinners, beseech You, > merciful God, hear us, O Lord and God! Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, have mercy > on us! Mary, Mary, Mother of God, pray to God for us! It is recited very rarely, the last time it was done - during the gravest hours of Covid pandemic. I wanted to ask - what is the English and Latin translation it? Judging from the words, it can be one of the most solemn prayer (rite) of extreme strength. So - maybe there are the official texts and indications for it? p.s. Less than 2 hours ago Biden authorized the long range strikes to Russia. There has been very clear plans what will be done in response to them. So, the supplications can be only thing that is left.

Scripture says that Jesus will make war on the enemies of God from a horse and his sword will be the word of his mouth. It looks like the devil will lead an army of men into a war against Jesus' headquarters here on earth after the 1000 year reign in the air. **NB** It's **not the devil who leads**, **it's the beast**. The beast is the one who attempts to lead an invasion against Jesus' camp of Saints. This is because during this time the devil is imprisoned in the abyss, and that's why later he is freed ## The Rider on a White Horse ## **Revelation 19:11-15** >Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. Heaven has an army and Jesus is the leader. ## Birds get ready to feed on the flesh of fallen men ## **Revelation 19:17** >Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” The size of fallen men is going to be so huge that the birds are called to feast on the remains. ## The Beast and the nations get ready for war against Jesus and his armies ## **Revelation 19:19** >And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. Both sides get ready to attack ## Jesus Defeats the Beast and captures him ## **Revelation 19:20** >And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. The beast loses the war to Jesus, he is captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire. Since this beast is alive and thrown alongside the false prophet into the lake of fire, does it follow that the beast is a **human king** and the false prophet his priest? Using the **principal of duality** like truth and lies, angels and demons, God and devil then it follows that the beast is the opposite of Christ in form in that Christ has a physical body and the Spirit of God so does this beast has a physical body and the Spirit of Satan over his head? ## Close Examination of the Throwing into the Lake of Fire Verse ## I have also examined the verse that describes the act of throwing and the Bible says as if these were two men being thrown alive into the lake of fire **Revelation 19:20** >...These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. **These two were thrown** sounds as if the false prophet and the beast are both equal in form and other attributes

On my reading of a Anton Gill's 1989 book "The journey back from hell ", he speaks briefly about JWs in the concentration camps. According to Gill, one of the issues the Nazis had with this group was their unwillingness to do military service. Videos like this and this by Amnesty International indicates that they still rather suffer the consequences of prison and difficulties in finding employment than do military service, at least in South Korea. What would the consequences be for a Jehovah's Witness, from their religious organization, if they join a military? Would the person be excommunicated or disfellowshipped if this is found out? (In case it makes a difference, I am asking about a scenario where the person is unrepentant.)

It is my understanding that because he had been a soldier and shed human blood, God did not allow David to build His temple---but reserved that honor for his son, Solomon. QUESTION: In his lifetime, did Solomon ever physically fight as a soldier or shed human blood with his own hands? His reign seem to have been, unusually, a time of peace.

Lots of battles were fought in the Bible. Some were won primarily by a miraculous act of God, such as the fall of Jericho in the days of Joshua or the defeat of Sennacherib's Assyrian army in the days of Hezekiah. The non-miraculous victory with the most enemy casualties that I know of is the Battle of Mount Zemaraim, won by Rehoboam of Judah against the Kingdom of Israel. The Bible claims 500,000 casualties. Which battle won primarily by a miraculous act of God, fought by either the tribes (Moses through Samuel), United Kingdom (Saul to Solomon) or the Kingdom of Judah (Rehoboam to the Exile)... - claimed the most enemy casualties? - was fought against the largest opposing army? I am looking for battles prior to the Babylonian Exile, ca 585 BC. The greatest victory I know of is the defeat of Sennacherib, with 185,000 enemy casualties: > 32 “Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He > shall not come into this city or shoot an arrow there, or come before > it with a shield or cast up a siege mound against it. 33 By the way > that he came, by the same he shall return, and he shall not come into > this city, declares the Lord. 34 For I will defend this city to save > it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.” 35 And > that night the angel of the Lord went out and **struck down 185,000 in > the camp of the Assyrians**. And when people arose early in the morning, > behold, these were all dead bodies. 36 Then Sennacherib king of > Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh. 37 And as he was > worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammelech and Sharezer, > his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of > Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place. (2 Ki 19:32–37) Is there a greater miraculous victory that I overlooked?

In May 1942, two Czech operatives (trained and armed by the British) assassinated Reinhard Heydrich , the Nazi governor of Bohemia and Moravia and a good candidate for the most evil man who ever lived. In the aftermath of said killing, the assassins were tracked down to an Eastern Orthodox cathedral with several other resistance fighters, where, following a lengthy shootout, they took their own lives in order to avoid capture. I imagine that sparing themselves the horrors that the Gestapo would certainly have inflicted on them was a factor in their suicides, but I imagine that **another factor was the desire to protect their families and comrades, whom they might well have put in mortal danger had they been taken alive**, by means of the information that would have been tortured out of them. I know that Christians generally take a firm stance against against suicide, and Roman Catholics are said to be particularly steadfast in that regard. **But is the case of spies avoiding capture, especially while fighting in a righteous cause, an exception in which suicide can be seen as self-sacrifice rather than self-murder?**

I was born and raised in Sweden. I grew up with "kinda" Christian parents. However, I can't remember ever going to a church except when somebody had died or got married. I couldn't tell you which of the numerous "branches" that they believed in, but that's sort of at the core of my question: why exactly does it matter? I realize and recognize that it *does* clearly matter to an enormous amount of people. I just don't understand **why** exactly. Why is it of such importance that other people also believe the exact same set of ancient stories, and interpret them in the same manner, as yourself? Frankly, as cozy and nice as Christianity can be, I would not feel any sorrow if everyone around me were, instead of Jesus and God, referring to Thor and Oden. In practice, what I like about religion is the concept of unity within a people. Having structure and tradition and recurring events, etc. Some common set of rules which bind a people together and empower it against the outside world. Note that I'm not saying that peoples should be fighting or going to war to somehow force (or even attempt to convince peacefully) each other about how "they are right". This is also at the core of my world view. I don't understand the futile struggle to travel to Africa (for example) and tell them about our Jesus and God and how they should be living. It's frankly insulting to me. I wish that Christians would never have tried to go on "missions" to "spread the faith", but rather keep it as local as possible. As somewhat of an "outsider", although still definitely not an Atheist, it seems absurd to me the amount of time, efforts and sorrows are expended arguing and fighting with each other about religions, which can be seen as a metaphor for races, and the belief (no pun intended) that one can "turn" somebody into a Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) by convincing them with arguments. Or that this is meaningful even if it is possible. I suspect that you will respond: > Well, in so-and-so page of the Bible, Some Person said so-and-so, so that's why we try to spread the gospel! I don't mean to offend anyone, and I find the Bible fascinating in many ways, but at the end of the day, what's the end goal of trying to spread a religion/faith/world view to people who are fundamentally incompatible and even violently opposed to hearing what some White Christian tells them, since they already have their own views and traditions locally? I'm truly not "taking any sides". I just wish that Christians in particular would not try to push their faith (which appears to vary wildly between the numerous "branches") onto people who are just as disinterested in "becoming Christians" or "letting Jesus into their lives" as you would be if a Muslim told you to start slaughtering animals according to the Halal method, or told you that you can only go to Heaven/Valhalla if you believe in the Nordic mythology. I hope that my point is coming across clearly and that it doesn't offend anyone. I'm genuinely trying to understand why it's such an important thing for Christians to promote their, what amounts to, traditions and rites, toward other people. Even just trying to convince another Christian of a different branch that what they grew up with is "wrong" is an exercise in futility and appears, to me, almost as if the people trying to do so are actively "picking a fight". In either case, that's what inevitably happens when you tell somebody (or imply) that they are wrong and you are right; they just become stubbornly convinced that their way was right all along and that these external people are trying to sell them something which they have zero interest in. Would it really be out of the question to simply have your branches and churches and do what you wish in there and if somebody shows interest, they can be invited to join, but this isn't some "end goal" or "the overall purpose" of gathering and believing a certain branch of Christianity (or any religion)?

It would make sense for an enemy nation with knowledge of the Catholic or Orthodox systems of fasting to attack during the fasting seasons, when the faithful were not well fed. As a corollary, it would make sense for a Catholic or Orthodox nation to abstain from war during a fasting season. Are there any recorded instances, or perhaps some Catholic canon law or Orthodox economy, regarding the suspension of Lenten or other fasts during times of war?

Just really a question of curiosity on how the faith has, at times, turned down the wrong path of aggression and violence, specifically wondering what passages of the New Testament were used as justification for such action.

Communism has been an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for a long time, but also capitalism has been a problem. To many people, the Vietnam War did seem like a meaningless war. But Jesus said, "War must come" (see, for example, Matthew 24:6 ). My questions is: Did the RCC take a stand for the Vietnam War or against it? Did they support one side? What was its official reaction?

In the United States, the Secretary of Defense just lifted the ban on women in combat. Many Christians seem to oppose this idea and believe that women should not be put in combat. What is the biblical basis or precedent for this position?

"Battle Hymn of the Republic" is a well-known hymn written around the time of the United States civil war (1861–1865). It is often performed at patriotic events in the United States, like political party conventions and presidential inaugurations . Because it speaks of battle, it would have been poignant to soldiers during the civil war when it was written, but the text doesn't seem to have much, if any, patriotic imagery – like mention of country, or flags, or an ode to the homeland. Its imagery seems to be mostly Biblical – Christ coming in glory, his triumph over sin, and truth advancing. Paul used this kind of imagery extensively in the New Testament to talk about the war against sin and loyalty to Christ. The closest to USA-specific imagery I can find is the mention of Christ being born "across the sea," but of course that is just as applicable in Canada, Guatemala, Tonga, or Australia as it is in the United States. Why, so many years after the civil war, is this song considered to be a patriotic hymn?

This is definitely a biblical concept, and have heard similar to it I thought. But, when asked to find this by another, I am having little luck.

I am not sure if am just imagining this, but I can remember hearing from my Sunday School teacher that "the *Middle East* will not have peace, according to some Bible verse ... that dooms the region from ever having peace" Where *Middle East* in my faint recollection can be any of the major cities or countries in that region. Especially during the time the Kingdoms of Israel were split. If such a verse(s) exist please let me know. Plus an explanation/opinion on the verse would be nice too. My denominations is Protestant: Pentecostal and attend a new life church. I am looking for a Protestant perspective.

I have come across a chapter in the Book of Mormon that is very interesting. It details how the Nephites thought it would be better to bury their swords and never kill another person again. The Lamanites came against them for war, but the Nephites did nothing and about 1000 of them were killed. After that some of the Lamanites felt regret for killing them anyway and repented of their sins. They then joined the Nephites and buried their swords as well. Alma 24:18 Sums up the Nephites' disposition: > And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands. With this story in mind, what is the LDS position on war, self-defense, and keeping weapons?

It seems that I once heard that [Quakers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers) are pacifists, but I'm not sure if that's just a rumor or not. What is the Quaker doctrine regarding war and killing people as a soldier in the military? If they think it is wrong, what is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, do their beliefs extend to being a soldier in the military under any capacity (such as a chaplain, for example)?

I understand the Ustashi (or *Ustaše*) to have been a fascist organization that dominated Croatia during World War II. This Wikipedia article reputes that Ustashi persecution of non-Croatians was so severe that the Nazi occupiers actually had to intervene to protect some persons. One Eastern Orthodox *Synaxarion* commemorates several Serbian Eastern Orthodox clergy whom it claims were tortured and killed by the Ustasi: - Bishop Platon of Banjaluka was shod with horse shoes and forced to walk several miles before having a fire lit on his chest by Ustashi members - Bishop Sava of Krushedol was tortured and killed in an Ustashi concentration camp - Abbot Raphael Momchilovich was tortured and killed in an Ustashi concentration camp - Priest Branko Dobrosavljevich was killed with a hammer blow to the head, after witnessing the killing of his son at an Ustashi concentration camp - Priest George Bogich was strangled with his own intestines by Ustashi torturers - Priest Dane Babich was flayed and left to die by Ustashi torturers This article from Veterans Today provides some of the gruesome details of the above and other atrocities committed by the Ustashi. The article claims – with quotes from multiple sources – that many of the atrocities instigated by the Ustashi were prompted by Roman Catholic clergy members: > Fra Marko Zovko consistently instigates the peasants to murder and rob > the property of Serbs, patronizing them:“If only one Serb stays alive > after the war, you will be paying the high price. That is why all > Serbs must be exterminated“. Ante Pavelic, the Croatian fuhrer, > decorated fra Zovko with the Order of Merit of the second degree. > > Catholic atrocities began with the destruction of Orthodox Churches as > well as executions of Orthodox priests. Priest Samardzich was killed > in Kulen Vakuf. Ustashe kiled his wife and children before his own > eyes, before killing him. Martyr’s death was destined for priest > Milosh Vuich with many other Serbs from Slunj area. His wife was > ripped apart, her unborn baby was taken out of her womb, another > two-year old child was muredred as well. Atrocities by rogue members of clergy from both east and west is nothing new, of course, but the aforementioned Wikipedia claims that the Ustashi was actually supported by the Vatican during and after World War II. In 1998, Pope John Paul II beatified Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb, who, according to some sources complied in the forcible conversion of Orthodox Serbs to Roman Catholicism. There seems to be a lot of material on the web and in print that connects the Roman Catholic Church with the Ustashi, but frankly some of this seems quite incredible. Has there ever been any official communication from the Vatican condemning or denying the atrocities carried out by the Ustashi that some have connected to Roman Catholic clergy?

It is stated in 1 Samuel 13:19-22 that Saul's army didn't have any swords or spears, due to the Philistines "not allowing" Israeli blacksmiths. > Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land > of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves > swords or spears.” But every one of the Israelites went down to > the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his > sickle, and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the > plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for > sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. So on the day of > the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any > of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son > had them. (ESV) How did the Philistines achieve this? I assume this has to do with cost - what is the modern day equivalent of 2/3 or 1/3 of a shekel? Is there some other reason that Israel didn't arm themselves - or did they use mainly non-metal weapons?