top of page


this page is mostly notes


I have heard two sides presented by the Eastern Orthodox about war. Many Eastern Orthodox so called Christians seem to think that "big issues" ( heresy) are stupid things like contradicting how to do a hand position to do the sign of the cross, or some nuance in how to correctly perform a Liturgy, but things the bible says are big issues like "the works of the flesh" in places like Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, and Revelation 21:8 are just heterodox issues. That in itself is a major Eastern Orthodox heresy.


These Orthodox believers say there are several justifications for killing in wars, including defence by a nation under sudden attack, the ambiguous phrase "just cause" , as a last resort, or if there is constant provocation or war crimes, or to protect the innocent. However the entire Orthodox religion has entirely failed to provide a framework of proof of these beliefs in the same way the Roman Catholics have systematized them in their "Rules of Just War" by Thomas Aquinas.


Judging by the plethora of Eastern Orthodox soldiers presently killing each other in the Russia versus Ukraine war, who could doubt that among the Orthodox general public such views justifying killing in wars are not prevalent? This of course would be invalid in Eastern Orthodoxy unless they could give quotations by those in authority in their pseudo church or their list of pseudo saints and pseudo church fathers. Here are some of their quotes (contact me here or on Facebook if you are Orthodox and also believe in just war and wish to add further proof texts) I have yet to verify the statements are real,

1) St. Gregory of Nyssa: 

"The Great Catechism": "It is not the purpose of the soldier to kill, but to serve as an instrument of God's justice."

"We ought to remember that war is not always to be condemned, but only when it is waged without just cause or in a manner that violates the laws of justice and humanity."

"The true purpose of war is to preserve peace and justice, not to perpetrate violence and destruction."


2) St.John Damascene,

"An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith": "Just war is permissible, but it must be undertaken only for the sake of peace, and it must be waged by a legitimate authority."

St. John of Damascus:
"War is only justifiable when it is waged to prevent greater evil, such as the loss of freedom, the oppression of the innocent, or the destruction of the faith."


"Those who wage war must do so with a spirit of humility and repentance, and seek to reconcile with their enemies whenever possible."

3) St. Augustine of Hippo:
"The passion for war is innate in us, but the passion for peace is acquired. That is why we see that, although men go to war with great readiness, they are not so quick to return to peace."

"The object of war is peace, and the means of war is violence."

"A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

4) St. John Chrysostom:
"Let not the sword be wielded save in cases of necessity, and if it must be used, let it be with all tenderness and gentleness." (another hilarious oxymoronic statement)

"It is lawful to make war only for the defense of life."

"It is not right to go to war for any cause whatever, but only for just and necessary reasons, such as to protect the persecuted and the innocent, and to punish the wicked."

"War must be undertaken only as a last resort, and after all efforts at peaceful resolution have been exhausted."


6) St. Maximus the Confessor:
"War can only be justified when it is waged for the defense of the faith, the protection of the innocent, or the preservation of justice."


"Those who wage war must do so with compassion and restraint, and seek to avoid harm to non-combatants and innocent civilians."


8) Patriarch Kirill of Moscow:

"Many are dying on the fields of internecine warfare," Kirill, 75, said in his first Sunday address since the mobilisation order. "The Church prays that this battle will end as soon as possible, so that as few brothers as possible will kill each other in this fratricidal war."

"But at the same time, the Church realises that if somebody, driven by a sense of duty and the need to fulfil their oath ... goes to do what their duty calls of them, and if a person dies in the performance of this duty, then they have undoubtedly committed an act equivalent to sacrifice. They will have sacrificed themselves for others. And therefore, we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins that a person has committed."

proof link:


(under construction)


(under construction)

after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire was continually involved in one war after another with the Sassanid Empire and the newly growing Muslim influence among the Arab nations. The Orthodox church considers the rulers and commanders who fought in these wars both heroes and saints. Yet once again we have their oxymoronic belief they are pacifists, who are empowered to forgive their killer followers in some Antinomianist style heresy. The Eastern Orthodox religion is based on never ending Orwellian  "doublethink". 

Maximus the Confessor (580 – 13 August 662) was convicted of heresy by the early church of sacerdotalism (later divided into Catholicism and Orthodoxy). First he was tortured, his tongue was cut out (so he could no longer speak his rebellion) and his right hand cut off, so that he could no longer write letters. He was then exiled and died in prison (the Eastern Orthodox style of quiet murder). This church of killer witches was why the real church went into hiding, as is explained in Revelation chapter 12.


Are associated with continual acts of violence, including religious minorities. The Cossacks were and are almost exclusively Eastern Orthodox.

The Cossacks had their origins in the 14th century, when refugees from religious persecution, outlaws, and escaped serfs banded together in settlements for protection. Under the tsars they were allowed considerable autonomy in return for protecting the frontiers and participating in military campaigns; with the collapse of Soviet rule Cossack groups have reasserted their identity in both Russia and Ukraine.


When you consider "The Battle of Cynoscephalae" the sycophancy of Greece toward Constantine and the Roman Empire shows up as the treachery it really is. What on Earth is supposed to be spiritual about the Roman Empire? Constantine was just a butcher who ignored altogether the Peace and Love teachings of Jesus. 

under construction.....


I find it amazing Eastern Orthodoxy wants to pretend they are actually pacifists, while having warrior saints and priests, involvement in a list of wars as long as the queue to go to hell, blessing  soldiers and the weapons of warfare, and making their most violent historical figures "saints equal to the apostles". It shows the reality of the fact that the theology of Orthodoxy is essentially oxymoronic, over and over again, far more than Catholicism is.  It requires their proselytes and those indoctrinated into it from youth to continually exercise doublethink, an Orwellian expression meaning "to think two contradictory things at the same time and believe them both." .

The roots of Orthodoxy are quote "getting in bed with the Empire" from the start under Constantine, and they have not stopped that religious whoredom since on a political level, even today they are forever toadying to people like Putin.

There is a famous painting by Yegor Zaytsev, showing Orthodox Russian troops being blessed by Orthodox Bishops and clergy before they went out to fight in the Battle of Borodino. Did the same bishops and priests need to be visited in confession by the soldiers who survived to be forgiven for killing in wars? And if so..... what happened to the ones killed on the battlefield? Fact is Orthodoxy believes in "just war" just as much as Catholics do, Jesus never however. Jesus taught a non compromise Love and Peace message.

The first council of Arles.

The first council of Arles [1] took place a year after the Edict of Milan, in which Christianity became a legal religion. This council was the first called by Constantine and is the forerunner of the First Council of NicaeaAugustine of Hippo called it an Ecumenical Council. It had the following outcomes:

The obvious question is, if this council is supposed to be the Early Orthodox/Catholic church, and Orthodoxy is pacifist, why then excommunicate conscientious objectors? 


So what is the "reality" of this? Are they really saying


1) "War is an option. You can fight or not fight, according to your conscience,"

2) "War is an option, but choosing not to kill is the more spiritual option"? Yet both will still be saved.

3) "War is not an option, not killing is the only spiritual thing to do, and all soldiers need forgiveness through confession." (and if so did all who died in battle go to "hell".

4) "If you fight in any unjust war you will be damned." Ok tell us what an unjust one is.


etc etc etc

And is a church that in the broad sense regarding all sins says "We refuse to "judge" if anyone, anywhere, anytime who has died was saved or not!" Really any kind of guide to morality at all? That is almost all Evangelicals believe in not judging. I refuse to say John Lennon "will be damned" without qualifying the statement, that is by saying "Unless John Lennon found last minute belief and repentance, he was not saved". But Orthodoxy refuse to qualify the statement as others do.


That is you do not see Orthodox bishops and priests qualifying the statement to get past a pathetic moral inertness by saying "Unless adulterers found last minute repentance, they were damned". With every sin under the sun, everywhere, in any religion, or lack of religion, they stick to this shallow, puerile, indistinct and frankly morally gutless sweeping statement  "we will not judge if someone was or was not saved" when the person died in utter sin.

And the reason is clear. Orthodoxy justifies so many "works of the flesh" or as Catholics say "mortal sins" that once they qualify the statement in order to claim they give proper moral guidance (or unveil a lack of it) their whole house of cards will fall apart and the carpet will turn red that has all the dead bodies underneath it from their history of butchery and imprisonments and persecutions, that prove they are no true church at all, just a religion of murderers, except to a slightly lesser extent than Catholicism. And the average Orthodox believer, usually so quick witted to see any tiny nuance of theology concerning issues like Monophysitism or the Filioque plays dumb on the subject. Why? Because they don't want to see Orthodoxy has blood on its hands. 


This situation will prevail in my opinion, because if it does not, and the Orthodoxy say openly what mortal sin is, the stupidity of their statement

"Only in Orthodoxy is salvation found, it is the only true church, but...... we

do not judge as to whether other people are saved" can be brought more clearly into examination. That is there are plenty of Orthodox believers who are not willing to say Evangelicals will be damned, the witness of the Holy Ghost is too strong, yet that is entirely the logical deduction of "Only in Orthodoxy is salvation found" indeed it is an outright statement, -no deduction really needed. As an Evangelical I make statements and stand by them. As Luther said "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise." Only the Jesus Saves gospel saves, a gospel that does not include works or sacerdotalism, therefore YES the Orthodox and the Catholics are damned, they preach another gospel, and that is anathema. We don't need your fake priests, your clown bishops, your ridiculous rituals, or your blockhead,  titular head for our salvation. JESUS SAVES! get it? And to Jesus alone goes all the glory and honour for our salvation, no man gets an iota of it..

JESUS SAVES! get it? And to Jesus alone goes all the glory and honour for our salvation, no man gets an iota of it. The Orthodox don't want to say that in reverse because then the people in their church might be more open to looking at the two "gospels that save" and make a choice.


The throwback answer of Catholics and the Orthodox is, "What about the Protestant history of violence? What about Oliver Cromwell? What about all the wars the Orange Lodge remember where Protestants won battles against the Catholics? What about World War 2 come to that!"

Well the answer to that is simple. "Unless they found last minute repentance all those people went to Hell too" Notice I am NOT judging, and that I AM qualifying the statement, yet I am giving moral guidance. I am saying Jesus banned war, he was not the same as Moses, who justified Genocide in Deuteronomy 4., flogging, stoning, cutting off women's hands, and a long list of other violent acts. Jesus was a Messiah of Peace and Love, and only the "little flock" of true Christians will ever see that. 


The fact is the Peace and Love Christians over the centuries were very brave. It is quite daunting to think of how violent people are, and what those who will not fight back face. They were even fed to lions in Rome,

The Catholics, for instance, butchered tens of thousands of pacifist anabaptists in the "St Bartholomew's Day Massacre" who believed in peace and love, and that Christians should not occupy places in government.

And herein is the logic of Romans 13. God will use the secular (like the Romans) to protect the righteous, from the kind of anarchy described in Genesis 6:11. It is not saying governments "are righteous" it is saying secular government is a better alternative than the anarchy before the flood, that's all.

If I said on TV or radio "Yes correct..... all the soldiers who fought and killed in World War 2 will go to Hell, whether British, USA, German, Japanese, or Italian, Polish, French, Indian, or African American unless they repented" I might expect a lot of condemnation. They would act astounded - as if pacifism is immoral. But someone has to "stand for the plan". The plan of Jesus is clear - there would be no more war if no one will do war any more, so don't do it. It is his command. Hypocritically the same pseudo Christians who outright deny God could use sinful men as "the rod of his anger" say they believe God used the atheist soldiers from the USA and the UK to win World War 2, which is in essence saying the exact same thing but modified.


If we look at how God used Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, or even the Assyrian in Isaiah 10, we see that "God using someone" did not make them necessarily righteous, any more than a raven feeding Elijah was "righteous". I personally would not be in the least surprised if on the day of judgement we find out even Solomon and Jonah might go to Hell, who knows? Not me.  "How are the mighty fallen" may apply to many apparently "top preachers" as is described in the scripture "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23.

The bottom line is, when a church like Orthodoxy is stuffed with gold, silver, fancy Cathedrals, and vain bishops, they will always want "their minions"  to defend their evil empire of covetousness.

Love your enemies means what it says. 



The Catholics are far more honest, and clear, on their doctrines of war and abortion, and self protection, but their history is one log bloody contradiction of them, a bloodbath. 

The Orthodox refusal to compile a list of what Catholics call "Mortal sins" and the bible calls "works of the flesh" promising damnation to anyone not repenting of them, is part of the key to their hypnosis of their church members into the process of doublethink over war........

continued (sorry this is not yet finished, so busy outlining their history of bloody murders in wars and prisons.......


Do not forget a true list of wars their religion is involved in should also include cold wars and proxy wars their "leaders" and soldiers are involved in. It must also included all  those who starved to death, and died of exposure, or disease as refugees in the avalanche of wars in which they have killed. I say this as the multi millions who die that way are often the forgotten victims of war, and mankind refusing the command (yes command!) of Jesus to "love your enemies!". It is because of war the Ebola virus is getting far worse in the Congo at the moment, who knows where that might lead?


The Catholics and the Orthodox like to be unmethodical in their representation of history. When giving a "list of crusades" they like to mention only those against Arabs or Muslims, and miss out the long list of other Crusades that prove their evil history, like the crusades against the Hussites, and several children's crusades for instance, 


(under construction - I intend to first list battles and wars systematically, then examine Orthodoxy's part in them. Also Catholicism.)

*) The date cited for when Ireland was converted to Christianity is 432 - St Patrick preached and converted all over Ireland for 40 years.  It is believed he died on 17 March, 460 at Saul, Downpatrick. So he took he doctrine of murder and war to Ireland. Pre-schism this will not have been the Roman Catholicism that dominates today according to the Orthodox view.

*) How did Christianity enter Britain? Catholics insist St Augustine of Canterbury the monk they call "the Apostle of the English"  died 604 AD (not St Augustine of Hippo - died 430 AD) and St Patrick were both essentially Roman Catholics (as to them their Pre-Schism Faith was like Catholicism) and they argue one or the other took "the Faith" to England. But before they defiled the British Isles with their heresies Constantine's violent form of pseudo Christianity had been brought here. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox do not like to think after the Romans left a remnant of the British could have developed Evangelical beliefs. Pelagius (c. 360–418 AD) produced deep theology in Britain (even though I believe he was wrong) for instance. So why could others not seek God too outside the heresies imposed by the so called Holy Apostolic Church?


+++) Byzantine Emperor Leo I, who ruled from 457-474 AD.

1) The Battle of Guadalete 711 AD - German "Christians" who believed what?

2) The Battle of Tours 732 AD - Muslims versus France (Franks) under Charles Martel


Carolingian |ˌkarəˈlɪndʒɪən| (also Carlovingian)


relating to the Frankish dynasty, founded by Charlemagne's father (Pepin III), that ruled in western Europe from 750 to 987.





The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Voltaire.


The Holy Roman Empire-A Confusing Concept:

Christendom is also a confusing concept, more confusing as it can be seen (by some) as begun by Constantine, but including the so called "Holy Roman Empire" (incorrectly referred to as well in the famous poem in the film The Omen).  

(need to clarify different historians views on the beginning and end and definition of the so called "Holy Roman Empire" as the division between Rome and Orthodoxy it seems clouds the definitions as well.


Is it a very Catholic slanted view to say for instance "and the Pope offered King Charlemagne......." when the Orthodox would say the concept of the Pope did not really exist at that time as it is defined today, and is an anachronism to use. Was this simply a move by the bishop of Rome to create a diplomatic fusion between him and an "Empire" to dominate it? Seems clear it was. Get friendly with an Emperor type figure, then divide from the Byzantine type countries and you get a ready made Empire to take over by religious means and get it for the Italians, and milk it dry of cash. The "Empire" of Charlemagne is referred to as "The Frankish Empire" and "The New Roman Empire" and "The Holy Roman Empire" by different historians. 

My guess is Charlemagne's conquests are best referred to as "Frankish", that the Pope seeking power suggested it be called "The New Roman Empire" to inject the concept of Rome into it (and thus grab the whole territory later by religious means) and that it was only later it was called "The Holy Roman Empire" as a second grab at power, by further consolidating the concept. I am not an historian and its just a guess having looked at several historian's views on it.


RESEARCH .........

Canon 12 of Nicea:

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military belts, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.

(+++) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (phase 1)king Charlemagne 

OED definition:

Holy Roman Empire

the empire set up in western Europe following the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor in the year 800. It was created by the medieval papacy in an attempt to unite Christendom under one rule. At times the territory of the empire was extensive and included Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and parts of Italy and the Netherlands.

3) The Carolingian Empire (800–888) - was a large empire in western and central Europe during the early Middle Ages. It was ruled by the Carolingian dynasty, which had ruled as kings of the Franks since 751 and as kings of the Lombards of Italy from 774.

In 800, the Frankish king Charlemagne was crowned emperor in Rome by Pope Leo III in an effort to revive the Roman Empire in the west during a vacancy in the throne of the eastern Roman Empire.


The Kingdom of East Francia was created in 843 as a partition of the Frankish Empire and result of the Treaty of Verdun

After a civil war (840–43) following the death of Emperor Louis the Pious, the empire was divided into autonomous kingdoms, with one king still recognised as emperor, but with little authority outside his own kingdom. The unity of the empire and the hereditary right of the Carolingians continued to be acknowledged.

Through Crusades, conquests, and inheritance, it expanded significantly thought the next 200 years, becoming the Holy Roman Empire in 962 after the conquest of Rome.

The Carolingian Empire established by Charlemagne aspired to be a resurrected Western Roman Empire, but was unable to sustain its unity and had fragmented by about 850. In this video, I explore why this empire fell apart and how this empire's collapse set the stage for the rise of France and the Holy Roman Empire.

The Carolingian Empire: Disintegration and Division, 814-1000 CE:


+++) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (phase 2?) King Otto:


After this point (962), the Empire began to divide to the point where it was more of the union than a state, allowing foreign powers to control large swaths of imperial territory. It shrank to the benefit of France during the Renaissance, whilst other states, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, broke off in 1648 due to the Peace of Westphalia. As Prussia and Austria became increasingly dominant through the 1700s, it finally came to an end when they were defeat at the hands of Napoleon in 1806. After Napoleon, a similar state was set up, the German Confederation, which would last almost until German Unification in 1871.

4) Sweyn Forkbeard invaded and conquered England in 1013 AD

5) Brian Boru and The Battle of Clontarf 1014 AD - 
note - if the woman Gormflaith (daughter of Mael Morda) was married to a man (by whom she gave birth to Sigtrygg), then after his death married first Mael Secnam, then his rival for power Brian Boru, how was the country of Catholic type beliefs (type makes it not an anachronism), as the Orthodox not Catholics allow such false marriages - or do I understand that incorrectly? 


+++) The Battle of Stiklestad: 1030 AD - before the schism, King Olaf enforces pseudo Christianization: (bazbattles)

+++) The Great Schism 1054 AD:

6) The Battle of Fulford 1066 AD - Final years of the Vikings Age. Old King Edward the Confessor dies heirlessly in early 1066. The fight for the English throne emerges. Harold Godwinson, William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada are the main pretenders willing to grab the crown

7) The Battle of Stamford Bridge 1066 AD -  Edward the Confessor, the struggle for the english throne begins with three main competitors: powerful Earl of Wessex Harold Godwinson, fearsome Harald Hardrada King of Norway, and Duke William of Normandy.

8) The Battle of Hastings 1066 AD - Duke William the Bastard lands near Pevensey, Sussex and starts the Norman Conquest of England.

9) First Crusade: Siege of Nicaea & The Battle of Dorylaeum 1097 AD - 

10) The Second Crusade (1147–1149) - was the second major crusade launched from Europe as a Catholic ('Latin') holy war against Islam

11) The Third Crusade (1189–1192) - also known as The Kings' Crusade, was an attempt by European leaders to reconquer the Holy Land from Saladin. The campaign was largely successful in capturing the important cities of Acre and Jaffa, and reversing most of Saladin's conquests, but it failed to capture Jerusalem, the emotional and spiritual motivation of the Crusade.

12) The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) - was a Western European armed expedition called by Pope Innocent III, originally intended to reconquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, a sequence of events culminated in the Crusaders sacking the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Orthodox-controlled Byzantine Empire.

13) The Fifth Crusade (1213–1221) - was an attempt by Western Europeans to reacquire Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land by first conquering the powerful Ayyubid state in Egypt.

14) The Battle of Bouvines 1214 AD - Anglo-French war fought by kings Philip Augustus and John Lackland, leading to this decisive battle.

15) The Sixth Crusade started in 1228 - as an attempt to regain Jerusalem. It began seven years after the failure of the Fifth Crusade and involved very little actual fighting.

*) The Battle on the Ice 1242 AD - Alexander Nevsky (venerated as a saint by the Orthodox, a warrior leader)
link (bazbattles)

16) The Seventh Crusade 1248 to 1254 - was a crusade led by Louis IX of France. His troops were defeated by the Egyptian army led by the Ayyubid Sultan Turanshah supported by the Bahariyya Mamluks led by Faris ad-Din AktaiBaibars al-BunduqdariQutuzAybak and Qalawun and Louis was captured. Approximately 800,000 bezants were paid in ransom for his return.


1260 - the Battle of Kressenbrunn

1278​ - the Battle on the Marchfeld 


17) The Battle of the Golden Spurs 1302 AD - oppressed Flemish lower class organised in guilds incite a revolt against French overlords. 

18) The Battle of Visby 1361 AD - The struggle of Valdemar Atterdag and his struggle to reclaim lands and power lost by his father, King Christian with culminating Battle of Visby in 1361.

19) The Battle of Aljubarrota 1385 AD - One of the biggest battles of Portuguese history.

20) 1389: Battle of Kosovo: (serbian - Ottoman wars)

21) 1396: Battle of Nicopolis: (Hungarian Crusade)

22) 1402: Battle of Ankara: (Ottoman - Timurid War)

23) 1402 - 1444: Battle of Varna: Crusade


24) 1453: Fall of Constantinople (Ottoman Wars) 

25) The Battle of Flodden 1513 AD - One of the biggest battles between Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. James IV honors the Auld Alliance with France and invades Northumberland. Young English King Henry VIII is campaigning in northern France. He designated Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey to form an army to counter the anticipated Scottish invasion. In August of 1513 nearly 40,000 Scots crossed the border, many of them will never see Scotland again.


Had his hand chopped of and his eye put out after a trial by the church for heresy, but later a council of bishops uphe;d his view.

wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor .

bottom of page