Christian Crimes against Humanity

Different how? they worship the same god, they have (more or less) the same set of beleifs, laws, and taboos, it would seem that they are both christians.

"He who does not question is lost."

catholicsd are christians, but christians are not catholics. catholiscism is a branch of christianity, the largest branch, with the pope at its head, it also encompasses other sub-branches such as the opus dei who are catholic sects. other branchs of christianity, the contain the same core ideology, but can vary greatly on the particulars of what they believe.

basically what u have listed are punishments that catholicism has used. they are no worse, than other punishments used upon people who comited other crimes no worse than those the catholics puniched. im not saying they are riht or fair, but they were considered so by all. other religious groups also used them, some still do simillar things today. most of the other christian sects however havent used those punishments, but also are not completely innocent, there is a period in english history in which catholic and anglicans took turns at burning each other at the stake, depending on which monarch was on the throne.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

Luke 19.27 Not the word of the Lord? Oh yes it is!

Christian apologists squirm and wriggle over this infamous command of Jesus to murder his enemies. "It's not Jesus," they say, "It's the 'harsh master' in the parable." But is it?

Luke builds to JC's big finish in Jerusalem by having his meandering hero tell a series of parables along the way. Luke 19 is the link from Jericho to the Temple itself. In verses 1-10, near Jericho, the godman invites himself into the house of a dwarfish publican called Zacchaeus and rewards the guy with salvation after Zac' says he is going to give half his goods to the poor.

At verse 11 a new scene is set: JC is about to depart (and of course he knows crucifixion awaits him); his audience think the Kingdom of God is at hand.

JC responds with the infamous parable, which is actually an attempt by 2nd century gospel writers to deal with issued raised by the "delayed kingdom". The believing brethren have the "good news" but what are they to do with it?

The parable starts with the words "A certain man of noble birth went far to receive a kingdom. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds." Is this JC? The answer is to be found in an earlier version of the same yarn – in Matthew:

"For the Kingdom of Heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods." – 25,14
Matthew tells his version of the story using just 3 servants (they represent the Christian brethren, "servants of the Lord'. "After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh" (25.19). There is a reckoning (the Day of Judgement). The lord is well pleased with 2 of them who have successfully "earned interest on his money."

"Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." – 25,21
The third servant however, who denounces his lord as harsh, says he was "afraid" and simply hid the lord's investment. A displeased lord turns on him as a "wicked and slothful servant" (25:27).

The point of the story? This is how Matthew rounds it off:

"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." – 25.29,30

In other words this so-called Parable of the Harsh Master / Parable of the Talents is a story about what Christians are to do with the "gospel" as they wait for the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. They are to spread the word ("grow the Lord's money", not hide it away. Correctly understood, this is the parable of the slothful servant, threatened with "outer darkness."

When Luke copied Matthew's efforts he added a new element: "reluctant citizens" of the new kingdom (no doubt he had in mind recalcitrant pagans).


"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us." – 19.14
Luke followed closely Matthew's story but replaced the final bit threatening "outer darkness" to lazy brethren with a more immediate and tangible injunction aimed at "enemies":


"I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." – 19.27

Where did Luke get his inspiration? A nobleman "travelling far to receive a kingdom" is a rare enough event. Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews - Book 17, chapter 11 maps the story and also provides all the ingredients for both 19.14 and 19.27.

With the death of Herod the Great, his son Archelaus – of noble birth – journeyed to Rome to "receive his kingdom" from Emperor Augustus. But at the same time an embassy of the Jews petitioned Caesar that "out of their hatred to him" Archelaus not "be set over their kingdom". Archelaus had slaughtered 3000 of his enemies at the Temple. The emperor eventually removed him and sent him into exile in 6 AD.

Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews around 93 AD.

"A good man is identical to the corrupt man, save for the contradictions in his words and actions."

Hold on, you have taken Luke 19:27 completely out of context.
Did you notice that it was part of a parable talking about the end times when Jesus returns.

We will all (Christians and non Christians) be held accountable for the choices and manner in which we have conducted our lives on earth. Jesus is talking about what will happen to those who have choosen not to follow him. It is certainly not the intention or a command to kill people.

Who do you think he is referring to? He is refering to the angels I believe!

You can make the Bible say anything you want if you lift scriptures out without understanding them in context with the whole message.

and finally -
Just because something is done in the name of Christianity it does not neccessarily mean that it is!

""What we do in life echoes in eternity" Maximus"

you can likewise make the bible say anyting you want with your understanding of the context.. your interpretation of the context and what is said..

"no quote until i copyright it.."

It would be wise to take the teachings of budda and compare them with the teachings of Jesus. Keep all those that were similar and throw the rest out, there would be less confusion.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

the christians i know arent open to other religions especially without jesus.. ther very hooked on jesus died for our sins

"no quote until i copyright it.."

I believe a christian is someone who believes that jesus was god come to visit us on earth - this I do not believe, so I don't call myself a christian. But I do believe in Jesus. He is my savior in as much as I follow his teachings.

Budda and him taught about the same things, so you can probebly be saved by following buddas teachings as well. See, its like common sense in overdrive. They say things that make so much sense, and you wonder, why didn't I think of that. It's right in front of your noes, but you didn't know it was there until you read something they said.

Anyways. Jesus died because of our sins, not for our sins, and just because he knew it was going to happen, doesn't mean it should have.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

You dont get saved by following Christ. You get saved by grace. It is a free gift, but we have to receive it before it is of any use.

You can follow Christ all you want, but if you dont believe that he died for YOUR sins then you are wasting your time. Christianity is not a bunch of rules to follow. It is a relationship with God through Christ and it is out of love we follow His teachings.

Without the cross of Jesus, Christianity is worthless. It is the central message of the Bible. Ignore that fact and you have missunderstood Christianity completely.

""What we do in life echoes in eternity" Maximus"

Pete - That's what you believe

But I don't believe it.

I guess in time we'll find out who's right or wrong won't we. I'm confident that I've found the way.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

im getting mixed messages, is there a hell or not? do i have to follow jesus to avoid it or not?

"no quote until i copyright it.."

another thing.. "Without the cross of Jesus, Christianity is worthless. It is the central message of the Bible".. well i was just tolfd by a historian in the london museum that the cross was chosen later by people toreperesn it. and that it wasnt good for some reason to represent it..

"no quote until i copyright it.."

Hell is simply being disconnected from God. If you don't follow Jesus then you end up in Hell

"Speak out, even if what you have to say is unpopular"

My belief on hell is. Your life ends and there is no more of you, that to me is hell. I believe that will happen to some people, but I believe very very few.

But Patepe - Religion is faith, it's not science, nobody knows for sure, there is no right or wrong answer. We believe in that we cannot see, and it is called faith. All I can tell you is that if it sets right in your heart, then believe it and if it don't feel right, question it.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

A religion that:

1. Claims to be the truth
2. Has in the past been missinterpreted
3. Has resulted in many, many, many deaths due to supposed miss-interpretations

Is NOT the truth because the truth would not be vague enough to lead to murder in the name of the truth.

Christianity has turned Jesus into a whore. The teachings of Jesus, whatever they were, were probably identical to Buddha which was not meant, in any way, to encourage guilt or murder or torture.

Hence, all of the above WAS done in the name of Christianity, but had nothing to do with Jesus. If a religion claims to be the truth then doesn't present the truth in a safe manner, it is an irresponsible and therefore incorrect system of beliefs to follow.

It's similar to telling people that they shouldn't kill anyone except hispanics. Does that mean that you should kill hispanics?

"Of course not! The bible doesn't say you should. It simply says you shouldn't kill anyone except them."

But isn't that indirectly influencing people to kill hispanics?

"No, it says you shouldn't kill anyone except hispanics. It doesn't say you should kill hispanics."

But wouldn't you say that statement, matched with the earlier statement that this is the word of God, can easily lead to people targetting hispanics more than other races?

Of course. Which makes it irresponsible, wrong, and therefore, definitely not the word of God.

"A good man is identical to the corrupt man, save for the contradictions in his words and actions."