NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY CHRISTIANS SINCE BIBLICAL TIMES *** Jai Maharaj posts
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Forwarded message from "Vera Pai" <verap...@yahoo.com>
[ Subject: How many have died since biblical times?
[ From: "Vera Pai" <verap...@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004
How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?
VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
"WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"
Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church
Authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans
As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples
were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed. Between 315
and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the
Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were
famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468] Pagan services became punishable
by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed,
because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all
Christian teachings..." In 6th century pagans were declared void of all
rights. In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on
demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to
pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a
Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.[DO19-25]
Mission
Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert
to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church
taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, wome and children slain 5/27/1234 near
Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by
Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized"
Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived
without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods,
cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more
successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter
Raleigh, ordered that "the heads of all those (of whatsoever they were)
which were killed in the die, should be cut off from their bodies... and
should bee laid on the ground by each side of the waie", which effort to
civilize the Irish indeed caused "great terror to the people when they
saw the heads of their dead fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolk, and
friends on the ground". Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim
to the carnage. [SH99,
225] Crusades (1095-1291) First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban
II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96
thousands. [WW23] .9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish),
thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered
(Number of slain unknown) [WW30] fter 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish)
conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl.
women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the
Enemy's] tents -- save that they ran their lance hrough their bellies,"
according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the
subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by
the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim,
men, women, and children). [WW3 0] In the words of one witness: "there
[in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were
wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily
and crying for joy our people
Marched to our Savior's tomb, to honor it and to pay off our debt of
gratitude"). e Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible
to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere
lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the
blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies
and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of
all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the
victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous
Sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that
within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished."
[TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following
summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of
decomposition. One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]Battle of
Askalon, /12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our
Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims
unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably
20 million victims (in the Holy Land and Arab/Turkish areas alone).
[WW224]
Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.
Heretics
Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and
six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice
birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was
exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372
C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians.
[DO29]
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely
sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman
Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single
pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezi�rs (today France) 7/22/1209
destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including
Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbors and friends)
20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the
population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were
Exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search
and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake
1324. [WW183]. Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy
alone), [WW183] Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians,
Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe
some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of
persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the
Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220
burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned
at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]. University professor B.Hubmaier
burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for
seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori
(Rome) on 2/17/1600.
Witches
From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several
thousand. In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern
scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake
or Hanged. [WV]incomplete list of documented cases:The Burning of
Witches -- A Chronicle of the Burning Times
Religious Wars
15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all
English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into
action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million
rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
[DO31]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope
Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader.
After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off
his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the
river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for
the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ...
to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and
Crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly
30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found
beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking
the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of
population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
Jews
Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by
Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed
on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first
synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on
command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property
confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would
not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total.
Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons),
Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund,
Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany
except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully,
Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton,
Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51
towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand)
burned. [DO41]
1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned
alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200
years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were
slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy
by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age
of ten had been forced to wear.
1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than
150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way:
6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
[DO43]
(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right
into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples
Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy
Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means
to propagate Christianity.
Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered
in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who,
he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made
Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion."
[SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolaters" and "slaves, as
many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian
nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are
hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the
declarations that are required" -- the equerimiento -- to claim the
ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If
the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding),
the requerimiento continued:
"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter
in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject
you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all
mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive
their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts
Bay Colony: "justifying the undertakers of the intended Plantation in
New England ... to carry the Gospel into those parts of the world, ...
and to raise a Bulwark against the kingdom of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
In average two thirds of the native population were killed by
colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the
marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course,
e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as
"for the natives, they are near all dead of
the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we
possess." [SH109,238]
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population
(Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant
natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000
Dead. [SH204]
The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and
Spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not
be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The
stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and
burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged
him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven,
rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the
Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties
They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the
ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in
honor of Christ Our Savior and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was
wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."
[SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and
from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and
mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain
like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn
to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of
Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half
before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were
exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other
Caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus
"the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively
liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than
the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of
millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been
exterminated." [SH75]
"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico
and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city
of Tenochtitl�n [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors
likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of
Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida). ."When the 16th century ended, some
200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more
than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of
America.
Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native
help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare
among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to
European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer
land. In the words of some of the Pilgrim Fathers:
"Their Wars are far less bloody..." so that there usually was "no great
slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven years and not
kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and
children. [SH111]
In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the
(generally friendly and generous) natives ttractive enough to leave
Jamestown -- "being idle ... did run away unto the Indians," -- to live among
them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'some he
appointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheels,
others to be staked and some shot to death'." [SH105] Of course these
elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the
treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no
choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia"
methods were ifferent: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of
stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack
the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the
colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the
"Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees
from resection in their own home country England.
When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by
Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian
chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after,
because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the
Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned
their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote:
"And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their
Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames,
where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies
and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ...
Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen,
filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and
to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111]. Because of his
readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to
quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly
destroy them..." (Deut 20)
Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the
bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers
that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish
with their parents". [SH114]
Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The
colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour
children from their mother's breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood
Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was
inspired by Spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was
near. [SH107-119]
The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in
servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a
share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girl and a boy if
you think good'." [SH115]
Other tribes were to follow the same path.
Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last
give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his
Beauty!" "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to
lick the
Dust!" [TA]
Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were
signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure
upon (sic) the treatise', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we
shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cut down their
Corn'." [SH106]
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian
men, women and children. [SH107]
In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600
Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Matter, revered pastor of
the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a
'barbecue'." [SH115]
To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki
people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a
century later about 250 remained alive -- a destruction rate of 98%. The
ocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they
were down to 920 -- 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had
numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 -- 95%
destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years
later barely 6000 were alive -- 81% destroyed.
[SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living
before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this
was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the
carnage was not over then.
All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it
was before the frontier age actually had begun. A total of maybe more
than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period
of 1500 to 900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other
epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad
treatment and slavery. In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this
continues even today.
More Glorious events in US history
Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious
leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to he Massachusetts Governor that
the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train
large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a
former Methodist ministers and still elder in the church ("I long to be
wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and
children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag:
400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws
collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six
years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few
steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were
afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.
By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the
carnage that by then had reduced those slands' native population by 90
percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total
die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary
said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased
members of the body'." [SH244]
20th Century Church Atrocities
Catholic extermination camps
Surpassingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II
were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years
1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by
Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliďż˝, a practicing
Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration
camps exclusively for children!
In these camps -- the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a
Franciscan friar -- orthodox-Christian Serbian (and a substantial number of
Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their
victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims
gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or
shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and
600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan
friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the
Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to
Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did
nothing to prevent them. [MV]
Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters -- the Viet Minh -- had finally
defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had
been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion.
Although the coteries assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist
Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns
many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in
Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S.
politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of
Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which
could have brought the communist
Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo
Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance
was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were
ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for
free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman
Catholicism.
The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American
counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common
security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and
monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of
Buddhist teachers -- male and female -- and monks poured gasoline over
themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in
comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison
camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even
Catholic rotesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is
estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000
were wounded -- mostly in street riots -- 80,000 people were executed,
275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to
concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of
American GI's lost their life.
Christianity kills the cat
On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers
college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she
had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two
Catholic priests -- with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of
W�rzburg -- additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl
with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital --
her body was littered with wounds -- her parents, both of them fanatical
Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for
medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss
Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of
similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century W�rzburg was
notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and
has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]
Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months
several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict
of the Hutu and Tootsie ethnic groups. For quite some time I heard only
rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda
massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic Church
journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany -- a station not
at all critical to Christianity -- the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having
actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain
Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital
Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and
allegedly murdered Tootsies in the most brutal manner. He is reported to
have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact
there has been a bloody laughter of Tootsies seeking shelter in his
parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set
foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation
of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established.
There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees -- women,
children, old -- being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tootsies and
turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia. In connection with
these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of
whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid
prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and
led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her
monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were
murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other
one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of
the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched
the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response.
She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to
set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never
come to an end.
References:
[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals kr�hte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.
[DO]K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
[EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
[EJ]S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
[LI]H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
[MM M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
[MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo
NY, 1992.
[NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the
Catholic
Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
[S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
[SH]D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
[SP]German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
[TA]A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have
Hapned
in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England,
London 1676.
[TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
[WW]H.Wollschl�ger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Z�rich
1973.
(This is in German and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is
The best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of
Original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings).
[WV]Estimates on the number of executed witches:
N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch
Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York
1959, 180.
J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56.
End of forwarded message from "Vera Pai" <verap...@yahoo.com>
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
kangarooistan
>
> with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital --
> her body was littered with wounds -- her parents, both of them fanatical
> Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for
> medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss
> Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of
>
> [DO]K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
>
> [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
>
> [EJ]S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
>
> [LI]H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
>
> [MM M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
>
> [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
>
> See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo
>
> NY, 1992.
>
> [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the
> Catholic
>
> Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
>
> [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
>
> [SH]D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
>
> [SP]German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
>
> [TA]A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have
> Hapned
>
> in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England,
>
> London 1676.
>
> [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
>
100 times MORE than all other religions COMBINED
We are white Christians and we want to HELP save you ,
were the last words most Tasmanian Aboriginals ever heard
will Afghans and Iraqis fall for the same TRAP ?
We all KNOW what happened when Palestinians accepted western HELP in
1915 same as Tasmania in 1815 , who will be their 2015 victims??
Having been unable to defeat the afghan and Iraqi resistance freedom
fighters , the western colonial occupiers have chosen to trick the
Afghans into a trap exactly like they did to the Tasmanian
Aboriginals , its the only option left as the western military have
been ground to a halt and thoroughly defeated humiliated and
demoralized
the Australians suggested the "TASMANIAN solution" is now the only
hope of defeating the Iraqi and afghan resistance , trick them into
surrendering then disarm and wipe them out with disease and poison
flour
Fortunatly some Tasmanian aboriginals descendants in south australia
married men from Afghanistan and Baluchistan and their children will
WARN the Afghans what to expect from the White christian colonial
promises
http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/A/Aborigines%20on%20Kangaroo%20Island.htm
Prior to British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated up to
8,000 tasmanian Aboriginals A number of historians point to introduced
disease as the major cause of the destruction of the full-blooded
Aboriginal population.[1][2][3][4] Geoffrey Blainey wrote that by 1830
in Tasmania: “Disease had killed most of them but warfare and private
violence had also been devastating.”[5]
Other historians regard the Black War, as one of the earliest recorded
modern genocides.[6]
Benjamin Madley wrote: “Despite over 170 years of debate over who or
what was responsible for this near-extinction, no consensus exists on
its origins, process, or whether or not it was genocide.” [7]
In February 1830, the government offered a bounty of £5 per adult and
£2 per child, for Aborigines captured alive.[11] On 20 August 1830,
Governor Arthur's office issued a clarification that rewards were only
for Aborigines caught whilst engaged in aggression in the settled
districts, and that settlers or convicts who went out and captured
“inoffensive Natives in the remote of the remote and unsettled parts
of the territory” would not receive a reward.
During the same year, Governor Arthur called upon every able-bodied
male colonist, convict or free, to form a human chain, later known as
the Black Line, to perform a sweep of the area. As in game hunting,
the men swept across the settled districts, moving south and east for
several weeks, in an attempt to corral the Aborigines on the Tasman
Peninsula by closing off Eaglehawk Neck, the isthmus connecting the
Tasman peninsula to the rest of the island. Arthur intended to have
the Aborigines live together on the peninsula where they could
maintain their culture and language.
During the Beagle survey expedition, Charles Darwin visited Tasmania
in February 1836 and noted in his diary that "The Aboriginal blacks
are all removed & kept (in reality as prisoners) in a Promontory, the
neck of which is guarded. I believe it was not possible to avoid this
cruel step; although without doubt the misconduct of the Whites first
led to the Necessity."[13]
By 1833, George Augustus Robinson persuaded the approximately 200
Tasmanian Aborigines survivors to surrender themselves with assurances
that they would be protected and provided for.
They were moved to Wybalenna Aboriginal Establishment on Flinders
Island, where diseases continued to reduce their numbers even further.
In 1847, the last 47 living inhabitants of Wybalenna were transferred
to Oyster Cove, south of Hobart, on the main island of Tasmania.
There, the very last of the full blooded Tasmanian alive in Tasmania ,
a woman called Trugernanner (often rendered as Truganini), died in
1876.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trugernanner#Truganini.27s_life
Truganini sister out survived Truganini by hiding on kangaroo Island
and refuse HELP from Robinson many times
All of the Indigenous Tasmanian languages have been lost. Currently
there are some efforts to reconstruct a language from the available
wordlists. Today, some thousands of people living in Tasmania and
elsewhere can trace part of their ancestry to the Palawa, since a
number of Palawa women were abducted, most commonly by the sealers
living on smaller islands in Bass Strait; some women were traded or
bartered for; and a number voluntarily associated themselves with
European sealers and settlers and bore children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Island
According to a report in The Times Truganini later married a
Tasmanian known as "King Billy" who died in March 1871?/ 1869 ??.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lanne
By 1873, Trugernanner was the sole survivor of the Oyster Cove group,
and was again moved to Hobart.
She died three years later, having requested that her ashes be
scattered in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel; she was, however, buried at
Cascades, a suburb of Hobart.fora short time then put on public
display
But until the late 1870s, three Tasmanian Aboriginal women – Sal,
Sukey and Betty – remained on kangaroo island . They continued to live
traditionally, clearing the land with fire and hunting with dogs. All
three women outlived Trukanini.their children mostly moving to live on
nearby South australia to this day , even surviving 7 nuclear bomb
blasts at maralinga in the 1950s , to be able to WARN the world what
white christians are really like
http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/A/Aborigines%20on%20Kangaroo%20Island.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga
Truganinis skeleton was exhumed by the Royal Society of Tasmania and
later placed on display.in Tasmanian museum[8]
Only in April 1976, approaching the centenary of her death, were
Trugernanner's remains finally cremated and scattered according to her
wishes[9][10].
Trugernanner is considered to be the last speaker of the Tasmanian
language,[11] though others consider Fanny Cochrane Smith, a half-
white woman who lived into the twentieth century, to be the last
speaker of Tasmanian.[citation needed]
In 1997 the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter, returned
Trugernini's necklace and bracelet to Tasmania.
In 2002, some of her hair and skin were found in the collection of the
Royal College of Surgeons of England and returned to Tasmania for
burial.[12]
I wonder if the Afghan and Iraqi resistance will FALL into the SAME
colonial TRAP used to steal Tasmania , and most of the USA and
Australia from its owners by pretending to offer help and work and
housing and food , while their real plot was to slowly strangle the
life from their unsuspecting victims , one after another across the
globe,
accept white christians ' help " at your childrens peril , we all
know how it ALWAYS ends when christian western colonialists invade
then offer to HELP if the locals cooperate and obey orders from the
new masters , even then they
WILL NOT HONOR THEIR PROMISES EVER
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/cdd/women/leadership/significant_tasmanian_women/significant_tasmanian_women_-_research_listing/truganini
her skeleton was acquired by the Royal Society of Tasmania in 1878.
This acquisition of her bones was the antithesis of her expressed
wishes. After a lengthy legal battle with the trustees of the
Tasmanian Museum the Aboriginal community in Tasmania were able to
have her bones cremated on the 30th of April 1976
We are white Christians and we want to HELP save you ,
were the last words most Tasmanian Aboriginals ever heard
will Afghans and Iraqis fall for the same TRAP ?
We all KNOW what happened when Palestinians accepted western HELP in
1915 same as Tasmania in 1815 , who will be their 2015 victims??
kangarooistan
<never.make.a.hard.decis...@gutless.wonder.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:20:56 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
> >How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?
>
Muslims learned what white christians were like inthe Crusades mate
Muslims now KNOW what jews are like
Muslims KNOW justice ALWAYS takes time mate
the pictures and statues of JUSTICE show she has a big sword and a set
of SCALES
No clock needed mate
JUSTICE IS INEVITABLE for every last drop of muslim blood EVER shed
its only a matter of time, Muslims simply dont care how long it takes
to bleed western taxpayers to death and remove Israel and punish the
jewish war criminals
it took several centuries to bleed western taxpayers to death/ =dark
ages , during the Crusades , that left 500 years of world peace and
the golden age of sciences arts and civilizations flourished around
the world once western taxpayers ran out of money to fund endless
unwinnable wars
Thank GOD western taxpayers are AGAIN bankrupt and world PEACE is
imminent
kanga
=====
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
kangarooistan <kangaro...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Jan 29, 5:16=A0pm, Krudd the Dud
> <never.make.a.hard.decis...@gutless.wonder.com> wrote:
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?
> > > , , ,
> > Obviously not enough Muslims.
> Muslims learned what white christians were like inthe Crusades mate
>
> Muslims now KNOW what jews are like
>
> Muslims KNOW justice ALWAYS takes time mate
>
> the pictures and statues of JUSTICE show she has a big sword and a set
> of SCALES
>
> No clock needed mate
>
> JUSTICE IS INEVITABLE for every last drop of muslim blood EVER shed
>
> its only a matter of time, Muslims simply dont care how long it takes
> to bleed western taxpayers to death and remove Israel and punish the
> jewish war criminals
>
> it took several centuries to bleed western taxpayers to death/ =3Ddark
> ages , during the Crusades , that left 500 years of world peace and
> the golden age of sciences arts and civilizations flourished around
> the world once western taxpayers ran out of money to fund endless
> unwinnable wars
>
> Thank GOD western taxpayers are AGAIN bankrupt and world PEACE is
> imminent
>
> kanga
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
So Muslims and Cristians are wiping each other out?
Would they please leave others out of it?
kangarooistan
>
> read more »
Just christians WW1 and WW2 killed far more than all Muslims wars in
all history
the number of WARS in great Britain are FAR more numerous than in
Palestine by several times
Seon Ferguson
911?
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> posted:
> How many people have been killed by Christians IN THE NAME OF JESUS since
> 911?
Since the terrorist mission of Jesus is stated in the Christian bible, the
answer to your question above is obvious:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Original post:
Ancient Pagans
Mission
Heretics
[DO29]
pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezi�rs (today France) 7/22/1209
Exterminated. [WW183]
Witches
Religious Wars
Crows'." [SH191]
Jews
Seon Ferguson
"use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)" wrote in
message news:20100129ITKLIemd955vF5F14nH7pkj@PjdVP...
> In article <BeOdnc6YYpFF6v7W...@westnet.com.au>,
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> posted:
>>
>> How many people have been killed by Christians IN THE NAME OF JESUS since
>> 911?
>
> Since the terrorist mission of Jesus is stated in the Christian bible, the
> answer to your question above is obvious:
>
> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
> peace, but a sword.
> "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
> daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
> law.
> "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
> - Matthew 10:34-36.
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
He also said anyone who loves his parents more then me can never be a
Christian, so I can never be a Christian. But that doesn't make him a
terrorist if it does Muhammad said much worse stuff.
kangarooistan
There, the very last of the full blooded tasmanian alive in tasmania ,
a woman called Trugernanner (often rendered as Truganini), died in
1876.truganini sister out survived truganini be hiding on kangaroo
Island and refuse HELP from robinson
All of the Indigenous Tasmanian languages have been lost. Currently
there are some efforts to reconstruct a language from the available
wordlists. Today, some thousands of people living in Tasmania and
elsewhere can trace part of their ancestry to the Palawa, since a
number of Palawa women were abducted, most commonly by the sealers
living on smaller islands in Bass Strait; some women were traded or
bartered for; and a number voluntarily associated themselves with
European sealers and settlers and bore children.
According to a report in The Times she later married a Tasmanian known
as "King Billy" who died in March 1871.[7]
By 1873, Trugernanner was the sole survivor of the Oyster Cove group,
and was again moved to Hobart.
She died three years later, having requested that her ashes be
scattered in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel; she was, however, buried at
Cascades, a suburb of Hobart.fora short time then put on public
display
But until the late 1870s, three Tasmanian Aboriginal women – Sal, Suke
and Betty – remained on kangaroo island . They continued to live
traditionally, clearing the land with fire and hunting with dogs. All
three women outlived Trukanini.their children mostly moving to live on
nearby South australia to this day , even surviving 7 nuclear bomb
blasts at maralinga in the 1950s , to be able to WARN the world what
white christians are really like
http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/A/Aborigines%20on%20Kangaroo%20Island.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga
truganinis skeleton was exhumed by the Royal Society of Tasmania and
later placed on display.in tasmanian museum[8]
Only in April 1976, approaching the centenary of her death, were
Trugernanner's remains finally cremated and scattered according to her
wishes[9][10].
Trugernanner is considered to be the last speaker of the Tasmanian
language,[11] though others consider Fanny Cochrane Smith, a half-
white woman who lived into the twentieth century, to be the last
speaker of Tasmanian.[citation needed]
In 1997 the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter, returned
Trugernini's necklace and bracelet to Tasmania.
In 2002, some of her hair and skin were found in the collection of the
Royal College of Surgeons of England and returned to Tasmania for
burial.[12]
I wonder if the Afghan and Iraqi resistance will FALL into the SAME
colonial TRAP used to steal Tasmania and most of the USA and Australia
from its owners by pretending to offer help and work and housing and
food while their real plot slowly strangles the life from their
unsuspecting victims one after another across the globe, accept white
christians ' help " at your children s peril , we all know how it
ALWAYS ends when christian western colonialists invade
We are white Christians and we want to HELP save you , were the last
words most Tasmanian Aboriginals ever heard , will Afghans and Iraqis
fall for the same TRAP ?
We are white Christians and we want to HELP save you ,
were the last words most Tasmanian Aboriginals ever heard
will Afghans and Iraqis fall for the same TRAP ?
We all KNOW what happened when Palestinians accepted western HELP in
1915 same as Tasmania in 1815 , who will be their 2015 victims??
Original document with links and refs
at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgk9t7p_249dn52dvf7
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
On Jan 30, 1:22 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)" wrote in
>
> > In article <BeOdnc6YYpFF6v7WnZ2dnUVZ_hGdn...@westnet.com.au>,
> > "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> >> How many people have been killed by Christians IN THE NAME OF JESUS since
> >> 911?
>
> > Since the terrorist mission of Jesus is stated in the Christian bible, the
> > answer to your question above is obvious:
How can this passage make obvious how many would be killed by
Christians when it doesn't even mention Christians? If it is obvious,
then give the obvious number killed by Christians and show where in
this gospel you found the word Christian and an estimate of how many
would be killed by them.
> > "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
> > peace, but a sword.
> > "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
> > daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
> > law.
> > "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
> > - Matthew 10:34-36.
Jai has carefully left out context. Read what he left out and you
might find that the above is about the Matthean Jesus' prediction that
his followers would be attacked by others including by their
relatives, not about his followers attacking anyone. Note that he
claims that his followers would be the ones hated ("ye shall be hated
of all men for my name's sake" - Matthew 10:22), persecuted ("when
they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" - Matthew
10:23) and killed ("fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul" - Matthew 10:28 and "he that loseth his life
for my sake shall find it" - Matthew 10:39).
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
> He also said anyone who loves his parents more then me can never be a
> Christian, so I can never be a Christian. But that doesn't make him a
> terrorist if it does Muhammad said much worse stuff.
Jesus doesn't say who can never be a Christian since he never uses the
word Christian.
uNmaiviLambi
> How can this passage make obvious how many would be killed by
> Christians when it doesn't even mention Christians? If it is obvious,
Such passages set out his terrorist mission of dividing and thus
killing
and "he that loseth his life
> for my sake shall find it" - Matthew 10:39).
Again, you have to see the context actually. He asks his followers to
buy swords even if it meant selling their shirts. He promised to roast
people in the hereafter, for merely not accepting him. He promised
those who refused him would be burnt- John 15-6. His followers
promised to kill, acts 3-23. Jesus commanded belief in him.
Being good is not good enough. He wanted people to blindly accept him
and even drink poison, handle snakes, scorpions etc etc. He claerly
quotes favourably about killing those who do not follow him- Luke 19-
27
If you say he was not a terrorist, you have to show evidence form the
babble and explain the above with no ambiguity and no waffle
These verses were/are used by his followers to kill
> Jesus doesn't say who can never be a Christian since he never uses the
> word Christian.
Play of words
P. Rajah
No matter what you say, no matter how much evidence is provided proving
Jay and his cohorts wrong, they will never accept it because their
agenda is purely and simply the vilification, and if at all possible the
extirpation, of Christians and Muslims in India. They are
fundamentalists who are just as dangerous as the worst examples to be
found elsewhere. What they lack at the present moment are the means and
the extended support to accomplish what they will always intend to do.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 30, 9:27 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 1:22 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How can this passage make obvious how many would be killed by
> > Christians when it doesn't even mention Christians? If it is obvious,
>
> Such passages set out his terrorist mission of dividing and thus
> killing
>
> and "he that loseth his life
>
> > for my sake shall find it" - Matthew 10:39).
>
> Again, you have to see the context actually. He asks his followers to
> buy swords even if it meant selling their shirts.
Not in the reference given by Jai; seeing that context doesn't make
this visible. Be that as it may, for what purpose were swords to be
bought? If it was for offensive purposes, doesn't it seem odd for
Jesus to have said 2 swords were enough for 13 people including
himself? Would King Arthur have ever told 12 knights at the round
table that 2 swords were enough for all of them and himself?
> He promised to roast
> people in the hereafter, for merely not accepting him. He promised
> those who refused him would be burnt- John 15-6. His followers
> promised to kill, acts 3-23.
Neither of these references is from Matthew's gospel. I didn't comment
on John's Jesus or Luke's Jesus.
> Jesus commanded belief in him.
> Being good is not good enough. He wanted people to blindly accept him
> and even drink poison, handle snakes, scorpions etc etc. He claerly
> quotes favourably about killing those who do not follow him- Luke 19-
> 27
>
> If you say he was not a terrorist, you have to show evidence form the
> babble and explain the above with no ambiguity and no waffle
> These verses were/are used by his followers to kill
I didn't say he was not a terrorist. I indicated that Matthew 10
doesn't seem to support Jai's claims that he was a terrorist.
uNmaiviLambi
> Not in the reference given by Jai; seeing that context doesn't make
> this visible. Be that as it may, for what purpose were swords to be
> bought?
Are you suggesting it is for cutting apples or for shaving?
If it was for offensive purposes, doesn't it seem odd for
> Jesus to have said 2 swords were enough for 13 people including
> himself?
He asked followers to get a sword- Luke 22-36. He asks followers to
get a sword even by selling their garment! That means each one gets
one. Then he says two are enough in verse 38. Jezuz spoke nonsense
often incoherent rubbish. This is one example. I think he clearly
showed examples of killing people including killing kids who disobey
parents Luke 7-10
> Neither of these references is from Matthew's gospel. I didn't comment
> on John's Jesus or Luke's Jesus.
We are talking about Jezzuz and not just Matthew. Matthew is just one
example of his incoherent violent mumble. To infer a theology from
this kind of a crazy nut is a waste of time
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 30, 12:48 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 9:53 am, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not in the reference given by Jai; seeing that context doesn't make
> > this visible. Be that as it may, for what purpose were swords to be
> > bought?
>
> Are you suggesting it is for cutting apples or for shaving?
He doesn't say what two knives (I'm told it does not necessarily mean
swords) are enough for. A couple of knives brandished might help
persuade attackers to go and pick on some other party, perhaps?
> > If it was for offensive purposes, doesn't it seem odd for
> > Jesus to have said 2 swords were enough for 13 people including
> > himself?
>
> He asked followers to get a sword- Luke 22-36. He asks followers to
> get a sword even by selling their garment! That means each one gets
> one. Then he says two are enough in verse 38. Jezuz spoke nonsense
> often incoherent rubbish.
By the time chroniclers are done with recording various people's
recollections of someone's statements, they can look incoherent even
if they weren't to start with. How about Krishna claiming that he
authored the Vedas and then claiming that he would never accept animal
sacrifice. The Vedas clearly accept animal sacrifice and provide
detailed instructions for how to perform them. So, does it follow that
Krishna spouted nonsense and incoherent rubbish?
> This is one example. I think he clearly
> showed examples of killing people including killing kids who disobey
> parents Luke 7-10
How about killing cousins? Gandhari asked Krishna why he couldn't have
left even one of her sons alive, perhaps the one who objected when
Draupadi was to be disrobed. BTW, Luke 7:10 is: And they that were
sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been
sick.
> > Neither of these references is from Matthew's gospel. I didn't comment
> > on John's Jesus or Luke's Jesus.
>
> We are talking about Jezzuz and not just Matthew. Matthew is just one
> example of his incoherent violent mumble. To infer a theology from
> this kind of a crazy nut is a waste of time.
Then, why do you find it fruitful to get theology from other crazy
nuts like the authors of the Mahabharata?
uNmaiviLambi
> He doesn't say what two knives (I'm told it does not necessarily mean
> swords) are enough for. A couple of knives brandished might help
> persuade attackers to go and pick on some other party, perhaps?
Attackers may have hundred knives! May be it is not a sword or knife,
may be it is a shaving razor! Gillette?
> By the time chroniclers are done with recording various people's
> recollections of someone's statements, they can look incoherent even
> if they weren't to start with. How about Krishna claiming that he
> authored the Vedas and then claiming that he would never accept animal
> sacrifice. The Vedas clearly accept animal sacrifice and provide
> detailed instructions for how to perform them. So, does it follow that
> Krishna spouted nonsense and incoherent rubbish?
Looks like you are working overtime to find garbage in Hindus
scriptures. You can find garbage in babble and koran. Wont find in
Hindu scriptures even if you try for a zillion years. Are you talking
about Lord Krishna or S.M.Krishna? Lord Krishna never said he does not
accept vedic sacrifice! Show me proper references! Hint: there is none
> How about killing cousins? Gandhari asked Krishna why he couldn't have
> left even one of her sons alive, perhaps the one who objected when
> Draupadi was to be disrobed.
So the Lord should take orders from Gandhari! Karna, Drona, Bhishma,
Abhimanyu, Pandava sons and many others got killed! Vikarna fought
against Pandavas like the others!
BTW, Luke 7:10 is: And they that were
> sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been
> sick.
Sorry. Mark 7-10
> Then, why do you find it fruitful to get theology from other crazy
> nuts like the authors of the Mahabharata?
You have to study Hindu scriptures to know there is consistency,
comprehensiveness and complete theology! You do not do so. So you are
left to your wild imagination guided by your hatred for Hinduism!
Peter T. Daniels
> You have to study Hindu scriptures to know there is consistency,
> comprehensiveness and complete theology! You do not do so. So you are
> left to your wild imagination guided by your hatred for Hinduism!
That's _exactly_ what fundamentalist Christians say about the
contradictions in the Bible.
You really are two peas in a pod.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> posted:
> On Jan 30, 4:33=A0pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You have to study Hindu scriptures to know there is consistency,
> > comprehensiveness and complete theology! You do not do so. So you are
> > left to your wild imagination guided by your hatred for Hinduism!
> That's _exactly_ what fundamentalist Christians say about the
Not so. When I inform Christians, fundamentalists or not, about the
contradictions in they Christian bible, they either thank me for
educating them after they have confirmed the contradictions, or they
totally ignore the information, or they promise to check on it later
with their priests and books.
uNmaiviLambi
I am least surprised you say this. It is assumed all over the world,
even by Hindus, that Hinduism is like Christianity and Islam. That all
are religions. That all religions are similar, if not same!! One has
to study Hinduism properly and then relapse it is *completely
different*! Islam and Christianity are held as gold standards and
people compare all theologies against them. Ignorant Hindus do so as
well sadly, because of the effects of colonialism, economy,politics
and history
I am sure you wont do this. But I will suggest this anyway. Study Gita
*properly* and compare with Bible or Koran! A shocking experience
awaits you
uNmaiviLambi
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <b6160e79-42b0-4d44-8ee3-5d0f169ef...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> posted:
> Not so. When I inform Christians, fundamentalists or not, about the
> contradictions in they Christian bible, they either thank me for
Once some one is committed to a system of thought, most often they
will not accept the truth. It requires a lot of intellectual courage
and honesty to come out of that.
That is precisely what Christianity and Islam try to prevent. They
need "faith" which ( in their cults) means to believe and accept even
if the evidence is overwhelming. Never accept the truth! For example,
the shahada demands they accept that Allah is The God and Mohammad is
the last true prophet. One cannot dispute that. By doing so one
becomes an apostate! Christianity is similar. Jesus is *the only son
of God and died for your sins*. No dispute! You can question anything
but not that!
I am sure ultimately reason and freedom will prevail. May take a long
time and a lot of suffering
Thanks
uNmaiviLambi
> On Jan 30, 4:45 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
One has
> to study Hinduism properly and then relapse it is *completely
Sorry. Meant realize not relapse
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <b6160e79-42b0-4d44-8ee3-5d0f169ef...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Jan 30, 4:33=A0pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to study Hindu scriptures to know there is consistency,
> > > comprehensiveness and complete theology! You do not do so. So you are
> > > left to your wild imagination guided by your hatred for Hinduism!
> > That's _exactly_ what fundamentalist Christians say about the
> > contradictions in the Bible. . . .
>
> Not so. When I inform Christians, fundamentalists or not, about the
> contradictions in they Christian bible, they either thank me for
> educating them after they have confirmed the contradictions, or they
> totally ignore the information, or they promise to check on it later
> with their priests and books.
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
Your tales of what Christians have said to you are no more credible
than your tales of what linguists have said to you.
P. Rajah
by Chaz Bufe
For tens of thousands of years human beings have looked up at the night
sky and asked themselves, "What does it all mean?" Many answers have
been suggested. One of the oldest is provided by astrology: the belief
that the stars and planets are controlling influences on our lives.
Astrology, as even most astrologers will admit, did not arise until the
advent of civilization and the concomitant religious/ magical view of
the world. (Religion and magic were a natural outgrowth of wonder and
ignorance; they likely survived, at least in part, because they were
useful to the priests and royalty as a means of frightening their
subjects into line.) Thus, astrology was the result of combining the
ancient practice of observing the night sky with a magical view of the
world, specifically what Lawrence Jerome, in the September/October 1975
Humanist, calls the "principle of correspondences." He explains this
principle as follows:
The omen or magic object has certain physical properties that are
related to the external world by analogy. For instance, the reddish
color of the planet Mars means to the astrologer that it is magically
related with blood, war and metal iron. . . .
After its invention by the Babylonians (whose priests used astrology and
the equally sensible practice of reading the entrails of animals to
"foretell" the futures of kings and nations), astrology was further
developed by the ancient Greeks, who named the planets after their
deities and ascribed the qualities of those deities to the planets.
(Those qualities are still the ones ascribed to the planets in "modern"
astrology.) Finally, in the second century c.e., Ptolemy wrote his
Tetrabiblos, the astrological bible, in the city of Alexandria and
brought astrology into its "modern" form.
During the Middle Ages, astrology was banned by the church, and it
wasn�t resurrected until the Renaissance, along with the writings of the
Greeks. The rise of science sent astrology into eclipse once again, and
it didn�t resurface as a widely held belief until the turbulent years of
the early twentieth century.
Since its resurrection, belief in astrology has touched all segments of
the population, not only in the U.S., but in Europe as well. Most of the
top Nazis believed in astrology. Himmler�s astrologer, Wilhelm Wulff,
even wrote a book on the subject, Zodiac and Swastika. Hitler himself,
however, apparently did not believe in astrology and viewed it as merely
a convenient means of manipulation.
In the U.S., a number of years ago Time magazine identified Ronald
Reagan as a client of astrologer Carroll Righter, and a recent survey
revealed that 15% of college undergraduates believe in astrology. Among
the general population, the percentage is far higher. Jon D. Miller of
Northern Illinois University reports that 39% of adult Americans, some
66 million persons, believe that astrology is "scientific." These
figures seem reasonable in light of astrology�s popularity.
At present, two-thirds of U.S. daily newspapers carry horoscopes. There
are at least 10,000 full-time and 175,000 part-time astrologers in the
country. And astrologically related books and magazines are a glut on
the market. A few sample titles: "The Astrology Way to Stock Market
Profits," "Birth Control by Astrology," "Astrology: Judging
Compatibility," and "Choosing by the Stars: Appropriate Perfumes."
(A number of years ago I wrote a "horrorscope" for a humor magazine in
which I listed among my credits an article in Motor Trend titled,
"Astrology and MPGs: Tune Your Car by the Stars." After reviewing the
available writings by astrologers, my only question is when Motor Trend
will get around to publishing such an article.)
In addition to its being based on the magical "principle of
correspondences," there are many other reasons to regard astrology as a
system of magic rather than as a science. First of all, astrologers have
never attempted to explain how astrology supposedly works�that is, why
the apparent positions of different astronomical bodies supposedly have
different effects upon different people. As Bart Bok, former president
of the American Astronomical Society, put it:
Many believers in astrology have suggested that each planet issues
a different variety of special as-yet-undetected radiations or
"vibrations" . . . [but] there is apparently conclusive evidence that
the sun, moon, planets, and stars are all made of the same stuff,
varieties and combinations of atomic particles and molecules, all
governed by uniform laws of physics. It does not make sense to suppose
that the various planets and the moon, all with rather similar physical
properties, could manage to affect human affairs in totally dissimilar
fashion.
Second, astrology does not even take into account all of the major
bodies in our solar system, let alone all those in our galaxy or the
hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the universe. Most astrologers
make their planetary computations using only the planets known to the
ancients; they don�t take into account those discovered by modern
science (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto); and no astrologers take into
account the nearest stars, which are far nearer to us than those in the
zodiac constellations, which themselves are at wildly varying distances.
Third, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the mysterious,
undetectable, astrological forces supposedly emanating from the planets
would be any stronger than the gravitational forces of the planets. And
those forces are weak indeed. At its nearest conjunction, Mars exerts
far less gravitational force upon a newborn infant than the midwife or
doctor who delivers the child.
Fourth, astrologers, in their computations, do not take into account the
inverse square law, which is a fundamental law of physics. It says that
the amount of radiation received by a body varies as the inverse square
of its distance from the source of the radiation. For example, the
amount of light reaching a ship four miles from a lighthouse will be
only one-quarter (per unit of surface area) of that reaching a ship two
miles from the lighthouse, and one-sixteenth of that reaching a ship one
mile from the lighthouse. But laws of physics do not matter to
astrologers, and they don�t care whether Mars is 40 million or 100
million miles away. They only concern themselves with the apparent
position�to a viewer on Earth�of Mars in relation to the backdrop of the
zodiac constellations and the other planets. So, if the astrological
"radiation" ("vibration"�choose your own nebulous term) of the planets
does influence human beings as astrologers claim, it would have to be a
most peculiar type of radiation, one which disobeys a fundamental,
well-established law of physics.
Fifth, many astrologers ignore precession. The Earth�s ro-tational axis
is not stable, and the Earth wobbles like a top�but much more slowly. So
slowly, in fact, that it takes approximately 26,000 years for the
Earth�s axis to complete one rotation around the 47-degree-diameter
circle it describes. This slow wobbling is called precession. It means,
among other things, that the stars we now see in summer will be seen in
winter (and vice versa) 13,000 years from now. It also means that the
sun has receded almost a full sign along the zodiac since the
Tetrabiblos was written nearly two millennia ago. So, the calculations
of astrologers who rely on that hoary source are now off almost a full sign.
Sixth, the most popular type of astrology is natal astrology, in which
astrological forces supposedly leap into action at the moment of an
individual�s birth, imprinting her or him with certain characteristics.
But the choice of the time of birth as the moment of supposed
astrological imprinting makes no sense at all. Astrologers choose the
time of birth purely because it�s convenient. They might object that a
mother�s body shields her baby from astrological "radiation" until
birth, but that argument ignores the fact that almost all babies are
born indoors, and it would be illogical to think that this "radiation"
could penetrate wood, concrete and steel, but not a few centimeters of
human flesh.
Some astrologers, especially the "humanistic" variety, attempt to
discount criticisms such as these by claiming that the planets and stars
do not produce astrological effects, but, rather, that the positions of
astronomical bodies only serve as "indications" of astrological forces.
This is a transparent attempt to evade questioning of astrology�s
supposed causal mechanism by retreating into a fog of ever-vaguer
claims. By taking such a position, astrologers are saying in effect that
for unknown reasons the positions of some of the stars and planets are
indications of the undetectable effects of unknown types of undetectable
forces emanating from unknown, undetectable sources. Such a proposition
is even more ludicrous than the traditional astrological view that the
stars and planets�never mind how�influence our daily lives.
Finally, there is absolutely no empirical evidence, absolutely none,
that astrology has any value whatsoever as a means of prediction. What
scientific testing has been done indicates that there are no
astrological "effects." For instance, former Michigan State University
psychologist Bernie Silberman asked astrologers to list compatible and
incompatible signs. Silberman then inspected the records of 478 couples
who divorced and 2978 who married in 1967 and 1968 in Michigan. He found
no correspondence beyond that of random chance between the astrological
signs predicted to be compatible or incompatible by astrologers and the
signs of those getting married or divorced. French statistician Michel
Gauquelin has conducted far more detailed tests which also have
discovered no astrological effects. (Gauquelin�s early, highly
publicized report of a "Mars effect" on professional athletes was the
result of an error in his calculations, and similar studies conducted by
others showed no such effect.) In one test he examined the signs (moon,
zodiacal, planetary, ascendant, and mid-heaven) for 15,560 professionals
from five European nations in 10 different occupations. He found no
evidence of any astrological effects. His calculations showed that the
correlation between astrological signs and occupations to be that of
random chance.
The fact that millions of astrological believers claim that they "feel"
astrological influences in their own lives and "see" astrological
influences at work in the lives of others is a prime example of wishful
thinking, and nothing more. Believers in astrology, like other
religionists, want so badly to believe in their preordination system
that they "feel" and "see" effects where none exist. Similarly, a great
many born-again christians claim to "feel" the presence of Jesus or the
"holy spirit" and to "see" the hand of Satan at work in astrology and
other occult beliefs. (Most born-again christians really do believe that
Satan exists.) And if believers in astrology want us to accept their
feelings as evidence supporting their beliefs, they must, to be
consistent, grant the same evidentiary value to the feelings of
born-again christians, which in some ways directly contradict the
feelings of astrological believers�all of which demonstrates the
unreliability of personal feelings as "evidence" in matters of this sort.
Why would anyone believe in anything as patently absurd as astrology?
Probably for reasons similar to those of persons who believe in such
patent absurdities as transubstantiation or their own "personal savior."
One particularly disturbing aspect of this belief in the absurd is that
many astrological believers not only do not use logical (scientific)
reasoning, but they do not want to use it. Their "reasoning" is that of
a stubborn child: "If I want it to be true, it must be true!" So, they
adopt (probably unconsciously) a completely dishonest intellectual
attitude, clinging obstinately to anything which seems to confirm their
their belief, while ignoring the plethora of inconvenient facts which
call it into doubt. The pathetic clamoring about Gauquelin�s
since-disproven "Mars effect"�while other similar studies indicated that
no such effect existed, and the above-listed objections to astrology
went unanswered�is a case in point.
The standard reply of astrologers to this is the childish, "You�re one
too," which evades the question of their own dishonesty by implying that
skeptics also ignore inconvenient facts. Unfortunately for the
astrologers, that does not appear to be the case. A study of information
evaluation by psychologists Peter Glick of Lawrence University and Mark
Snyder of the University of Minnesota, published in the May/June 1986
Humanist, concluded that skeptics are "fact-oriented," while
astrological believers are "theory-driven":
[S]keptics paid close attention to the information they gathered .
. . while believers largely ignored what targets told them when it came
to pass judgment on how well the astrological horoscope had predicted
the targets� personalities.
A study of credence in another occult belief, ESP, published in the
March 1980 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, tends to confirm
that occult believers ignore contradictory evidence much more often than
skeptics. In that study, skeptics and ESP believers read articles with
which they agreed and with which they disagreed, and then answered
questions about the articles. Approximately 90% of the skeptics
correctly remembered the conclusions of articles regardless of whether
the articles were pro- or anti-ESP, while fewer than 40% of the ESP
believers correctly recalled the conclusion of the article which
debunked ESP; a large majority of the believers "remembered" that the
article concluded that ESP exists.
Another of Gauquelin�s experiments provides a more amusing example of
the self-deception of occult believers. He took out a newspaper
advertisement in which he promised free personalized horoscopes to all
who answered the ad. One hundred fifty persons responded. Gauquelin then
sent out the same horoscope to all 150 and asked them how well it fit
them. Ninety-four percent replied that they recognized themselves in it.
The horoscope was that of Dr. Michel Petiot, a mass murderer.
Why do occult believers have such a reluctance to face facts? Glick and
Snyder concluded that, "in order to maintain the sense of being able to
predict events, the believer makes the facts �fit� the theory whether or
not these events are consistent with the theory�s predictions." The
reason for this blindness is obvious.
It�s an unfortunate fact that a great many people do not want to go to
the work of making their own decisions. They want someone or something
to tell them how to act, how to think, and how to feel. Astrology, like
other religious beliefs, fills the bill. As a system of preordination
("Oh! You�re a Scorpio! You must . . ."), it gives believers a nice,
neat means of interpreting reality and of tailoring their behavior and
expectations to fit the prescriptions of their belief system.
Astrologers themselves admit this, with some of them maintaining that
astrology "controls," "influences," or "can serve as a road guide." (The
difference between these descriptions is one of degree, not substance.)
Still, why do so many choose astrology as a belief system rather than
Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, etc.? A probable reason is that astrology
meets the desire of many people for a preordination system, yet it does
not contain the most unpleasant aspects of conventional religions. It is
silly and utterly irrational, and almost certainly influences some to
make unfortunate personal decisions. (Consider the effect of articles
such as "Birth Control by Astrology" upon those who take them
seriously.) In extreme cases, astrological belief may incline
individuals toward passivity�after all, if everything is written in the
stars, why not just go with the flow? But unlike such religions as
Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam, astrology is not based upon
guilt, misogyny, and sexual repression. It is simply based upon
credulousness, ignorance, irrationality, and the eagerness of human
sheep to be led.
Astrology is a handy crutch for those who are repelled by the more
overtly reactionary, inhumane aspects of conventional religions, but are
not yet ready to free themselves from supernatural preordination
systems. In itself, this turn from organized religion is mildly
encouraging. But it would be far more encouraging to see believers in
astrology rise from the Procrustean bed of their irrational beliefs and
begin to think for themselves.
P. Rajah
And this coming from an utter jackass who makes the most ridiculous
assertions, is unable to comprehend a damn thing, and then passes
himself off as some sort of expert!
Oh yeah, let's see some of the pearls you came up with:
"Jeezuz according to your babble is the bastard son of Mary"
"Followers of Jesus are bastards"
"Christians have slaughtered more cultures, killed minds, infested the
souls of people with the virulent virus of Christianity"
"christian bible says raping babies is a sacred act"
"Christians are such fanatics they think Jeezuz, the great bastard is
the only god"
uNmaiviLambi
> Mad Sudhan wrote:
> Oh yeah, let's see some of the pearls you came up with:
> "Jeezuz according to your babble is the bastard son of Mary"
> "Followers of Jesus are bastards"
> "Christians have slaughtered more cultures, killed minds, infested the
> souls of people with the virulent virus of Christianity"
> "christian bible says raping babies is a sacred act"
> "Christians are such fanatics they think Jeezuz, the great bastard is
> the only god"
Let me see if you have one honest bone in your body. Show me where I
said this:
P. Rajah
Okay, if I show that to you, will you admit that you are a lying bigoted
racist skunk, and then forever shut the f*ck up? Agree to that, and I
will show you the proof.
Pathetic lying douchebag talks about honest bones!
uNmaiviLambi
If I prove that you are a crook, dishonest, lack intelligence to
debate with me, are misinformed, a Hindu basher, lack substance, an
abuser indulging in ad hominem attacks and that I am intelligent,
honest, never abuse, after you show the example, will you apologize
unconditionally here in this forum and commit to correct your
behavior?
I am convinced you are all the above. Hence there is no point in
having any dialogue with you till you apologize unconditionally. Let
me see if you show true remorse without my help
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > On Jan 30, 1:52 pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He doesn't say what two knives (I'm told it does not necessarily mean
> > swords) are enough for. A couple of knives brandished might help
> > persuade attackers to go and pick on some other party, perhaps?
>
> Attackers may have hundred knives! May be it is not a sword or knife,
> may be it is a shaving razor! Gillette?
In those days; in all probability, a razor was a knife. Even until
quite recently, a razor wasn't very different from a knife; it was an
attempt to kill Al Capone with a razor that gave him the scar which
gave him the sobriquet Scarface.
> > By the time chroniclers are done with recording various people's
> > recollections of someone's statements, they can look incoherent even
> > if they weren't to start with. How about Krishna claiming that he
> > authored the Vedas and then claiming that he would never accept animal
> > sacrifice. The Vedas clearly accept animal sacrifice and provide
> > detailed instructions for how to perform them. So, does it follow that
> > Krishna spouted nonsense and incoherent rubbish?
>
> Looks like you are working overtime to find garbage in Hindus
> scriptures.
Not really. Just a parody of your caricaturing.
> You can find garbage in babble and koran. Wont find in
> Hindu scriptures even if you try for a zillion years. Are you talking
> about Lord Krishna or S.M.Krishna? Lord Krishna never said he does not
> accept vedic sacrifice! Show me proper references! Hint: there is none
Have you objected to any SriVaishnava who interprets the Gita the
following way?
According to the Gita, yajna or sacrifice does not refer to the
ceremonious Vedic ritual of physical killing but dedication of one's
all to the service of the `One Life' that is in all.
http://www.hindu.com/op/2003/09/16/stories/2003091600290300.htm
Where do the Samhitas or Brahmanas say that a Yajna is not physical
killing?
> > How about killing cousins? Gandhari asked Krishna why he couldn't have
> > left even one of her sons alive, perhaps the one who objected when
> > Draupadi was to be disrobed.
>
> So the Lord should take orders from Gandhari!
What Lord? Did Pandu, Dritarashtra, Kunti or Gandhari call him Lord?
Did Bhishma call him Lord? Did Yudhishtira call him Lord? Did even
Vidura call him Lord?
> Karna, Drona, Bhishma,
> Abhimanyu, Pandava sons and many others got killed! Vikarna fought
> against Pandavas like the others!
So, why did Gandhari's curse take effect? (that Krishna and the
Yadavas and their kingdom would be finished in 36 years). Would it
have taken effect if it was not Krishna's karmaphala? If it was his
karmaphala, wouldn't his karma (deeds) have been what Gandhari
characterized them to be?
> Sorry. Mark 7-10
Supposing that Mark is correct in claiming that Jesus made such
statements:
Might Jesus' objective have been to criticize the Pharisees for
preventing children from honoring their parents?
<<But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever
help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a
gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his
father or mother.>> - Mark 7:11-12
IOW, might he have been implying "You rotters prevent children from
honoring their parents thereby causing (children to dishonor parents
which is) behavior so disgraceful that there was once even a death
penalty for it."
Seon Ferguson
"use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)" wrote in
message news:20100130TB3K0v6oojk4605WgU1Pa05@J4amh...
What contradictions?
uNmaiviLambi
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:33 pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not really. Just a parody of your caricaturing.
So you withdraw your comment Lord Krishna disowned vedic sacrifices?
> Have you objected to any SriVaishnava who interprets the Gita the
> following way?
> According to the Gita, yajna or sacrifice does not refer to the
> ceremonious Vedic ritual of physical killing but dedication of one's
> all to the service of the `One Life' that is in all.http://www.hindu.com/op/2003/09/16/stories/2003091600290300.htm
> Where do the Samhitas or Brahmanas say that a Yajna is not physical
> killing?
Gita does say yajna should be service etc. Vedic yaga is also correct.
Lord Krishna says so. Both are correct.
> What Lord? Did Pandu, Dritarashtra, Kunti or Gandhari call him Lord?
> Did Bhishma call him Lord? Did Yudhishtira call him Lord? Did even
> Vidura call him Lord?
Clearly you did not study Mahabharatha properly
> So, why did Gandhari's curse take effect? (that Krishna and the
> Yadavas and their kingdom would be finished in 36 years). Would it
> have taken effect if it was not Krishna's karmaphala? If it was his
> karmaphala, wouldn't his karma (deeds) have been what Gandhari
> characterized them to be?
Lord Krishna says many times He is beyond Karma, phala etc. His
actions are all by His choice alone. What Indian Express says about
Gandhari's curse is personal opinion. Not shastra
> Supposing that Mark is correct in claiming that Jesus made such
> statements:
> Might Jesus' objective have been to criticize the Pharisees for
> preventing children from honoring their parents?
> <<But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever
> help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a
> gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his
> father or mother.>> - Mark 7:11-12
> IOW, might he have been implying "You rotters prevent children from
> honoring their parents thereby causing (children to dishonor parents
> which is) behavior so disgraceful that there was once even a death
> penalty for it."
Not so. Clearly Jesus wants children who disobey to be killed in
accordance with Mosaic law. Parents who give vain excuses that it is
all because of God's actions their children disobey or not obey are
vain excuses. He admonishes them for not controlling them and applying
stern laws - Mark 7-9 to 13. It is clear. No need to invent excuses
and circumvent
P. Rajah
Why the f**k should _I_ apologize, you dirtbag? You are the one who has
written all kinds of nonsense, have displayed that you have absolutely
zero intelligence to conduct a debate and edit out context in your replies.
You wrote:
> Let me see if you have one honest bone in your body. Show me where I
> said this:
>
> "christian bible says raping babies is a sacred act"
Wherefore you are accusing me of attributing to you something you claim
you never wrote. Now you have the dishonesty to edit out your challenge,
and pretend that you didn't make it, because you know I have the proof.
Furthermore, you claim that I am a Hindu-basher. Let me tell you
something: as painful as it is for me to say so, I have to say that Jay
Maharaj has more intelligence than you. At least that scoundrel knows
when he is beaten, and resorts to changing the subject. You, on the
other hand, when you are shown that black is black, when you said it was
green, you continue to insist that it is green because that is the only
way you can see it. You abuse the f**k out of Christians and Muslims,
calling them evil cultists, murderers, pedophiles, bastards and more,
saying that Jesus was a bastard and Mary was a harlot, and then have the
f**king gall to claim that you "never abuse"? And you have the goddamn
nerve to call *me* a "Hindu basher"? Get the f**k out of here!!
Now, I ask you again: if I show that you did indeed say that "christian
bible says raping babies is a sacred act", will you forever shut the
f**k up with your nonsense? Do you have even the shred of honesty to
admit, without my putting forth the proof, that you did indeed make that
claim?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Jan 30, 7:05 pm, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 4:33 pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not really. Just a parody of your caricaturing.
>
> So you withdraw your comment Lord Krishna disowned vedic sacrifices?
>
> > Have you objected to any SriVaishnava who interprets the Gita the
> > following way?
> > According to the Gita, yajna or sacrifice does not refer to the
> > ceremonious Vedic ritual of physical killing but dedication of one's
> > all to the service of the `One Life' that is in all.http://www.hindu.com/op/2003/09/16/stories/2003091600290300.htm
> > Where do the Samhitas or Brahmanas say that a Yajna is not physical
> > killing?
>
> Gita does say yajna should be service etc. Vedic yaga is also correct.
> Lord Krishna says so. Both are correct.
In the Gita, where does Krishna say that he will accept either animal
sacrifice yajnas or service?
> > What Lord? Did Pandu, Dritarashtra, Kunti or Gandhari call him Lord?
> > Did Bhishma call him Lord? Did Yudhishtira call him Lord? Did even
> > Vidura call him Lord?
>
> Clearly you did not study Mahabharatha properly
Since you have studied it properly, quote a verse where one of these
people calls Krishna Lord.
> > So, why did Gandhari's curse take effect? (that Krishna and the
>
> > Yadavas and their kingdom would be finished in 36 years). Would it
> > have taken effect if it was not Krishna's karmaphala? If it was his
> > karmaphala, wouldn't his karma (deeds) have been what Gandhari
> > characterized them to be?
>
> Lord Krishna says many times He is beyond Karma, phala etc. His
> actions are all by His choice alone. What Indian Express says about
> Gandhari's curse is personal opinion. Not shastra
What a shastra author claims Krishna said might be the shastra
author's personal opinion too.
> > Supposing that Mark is correct in claiming that Jesus made such
> > statements:
> > Might Jesus' objective have been to criticize the Pharisees for
> > preventing children from honoring their parents?
> > <<But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever
> > help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a
> > gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his
> > father or mother.>> - Mark 7:11-12
> > IOW, might he have been implying "You rotters prevent children from
> > honoring their parents thereby causing (children to dishonor parents
> > which is) behavior so disgraceful that there was once even a death
> > penalty for it."
>
> Not so.
How is it clear that this is not what was being implied?
> Clearly Jesus wants children who disobey to be killed in
> accordance with Mosaic law. Parents who give vain excuses that it is
> all because of God's actions their children disobey or not obey are
> vain excuses. He admonishes them for not controlling them and applying
> stern laws - Mark 7-9 to 13. It is clear. No need to invent excuses
> and circumvent
According to the excerpt (from the NIV Bible) that I gave you, what he
actually admonishes them for, in Mark 7:11-12, is preventing children
from caring for their parents.
uNmaiviLambi
If I prove that you are a crook, dishonest, lack intelligence to
uNmaiviLambi
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:32 pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the Gita, where does Krishna say that he will accept either animal
> sacrifice yajnas or service?
Gita says all that. Any worship is accepted with love. Results
accordingly
> Since you have studied it properly, quote a verse where one of these
> people calls Krishna Lord.
Please study at least Vishnu sahasranamam
> What a shastra author claims Krishna said might be the shastra
> author's personal opinion too.
Lord Krishna is the author. It is Bhagavad Gita. Not Vyasa Gita
> According to the excerpt (from the NIV Bible) that I gave you, what he
> actually admonishes them for, in Mark 7:11-12, is preventing children
> from caring for their parents.
You are waffling again. Play of words to fool people:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible
7:1-13 One great design of Christ's coming was, to set aside the
ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies
men added to the law of God's making. Those clean hands and that pure
heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are
very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees
of every age. Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of
God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are
poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve
to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But
if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a
device to free him from the claim of this duty.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 31, 8:52 am, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:32 pm, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In the Gita, where does Krishna say that he will accept either animal
> > sacrifice yajnas or service?
>
> Gita says all that. Any worship is accepted with love. Results
> accordingly
>
> > Since you have studied it properly, quote a verse where one of these
> > people calls Krishna Lord.
>
> Please study at least Vishnu sahasranamam
>
> > What a shastra author claims Krishna said might be the shastra
> > author's personal opinion too.
>
> Lord Krishna is the author. It is Bhagavad Gita. Not Vyasa Gita
If the author wants people to accept his opinion, he would naturally
claim that Krishna said it.
> > According to the excerpt (from the NIV Bible) that I gave you, what he
> > actually admonishes them for, in Mark 7:11-12, is preventing children
> > from caring for their parents.
>
> You are waffling again. Play of words to fool people:
>
> Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible
> 7:1-13 One great design of Christ's coming was, to set aside the
> ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies
> men added to the law of God's making. Those clean hands and that pure
> heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are
> very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees
> of every age. Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of
> God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are
> poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve
> to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But
> if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a
> device to free him from the claim of this duty.
Where does Matthew Henry disagree with what I said?
uNmaiviLambi
> If the author wants people to accept his opinion, he would naturally
> claim that Krishna said it.
You want verses. After I gave it, you try to escape saying this! As I
sad, Lord Krishna is *the author*! You said He authored the vedas when
it suited you.
> > Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible
> > 7:1-13 One great design of Christ's coming was, to set aside the
> > ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies
> > men added to the law of God's making. Those clean hands and that pure
> > heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are
> > very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees
> > of every age. Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of
> > God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are
> > poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve
> > to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But
> > if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a
> > device to free him from the claim of this duty.
>
> Where does Matthew Henry disagree with what I said?
Again you try to wriggle out. Either you really do not understand even
the babble or you try to waffle ( more likely)
Pharisees had "traditions" by which they conducted themselves. To
escape from Mosaic law, they gave kids reasons such as Corban (gift to
God). They said the child gave Corban instead of parents. So kids
have nothing to give. Mosaic law demands kids do not curse parents and
also that they look after parents. Or face death
Jeezuz demands they be put to death and they should not follow
Pharisee traditions giving excuses such as corban. Pharisees released
children from giving as after corban (gift to God), it is a sacrilege
to give to parents according to Jewish custom. Thus parents were
providing excuses for not following Mosaic law. Jeezuz objects to
treating Laws in such a hypocritical manner
So in summary he not only wants children killed for cursing but also
for not looking after parents which he never did!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Jan 31, 9:38 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 9:32 am, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If the author wants people to accept his opinion, he would naturally
> > claim that Krishna said it.
>
> You want verses. After I gave it, you try to escape saying this!
Not only have you not quoted the verses of the kind I asked for; you
haven't quoted any verses.
> As I sad, Lord Krishna is *the author*! You said He authored the vedas when
> it suited you.
He authored them from your point of view, that is.
> > > Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible
> > > 7:1-13 One great design of Christ's coming was, to set aside the
> > > ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies
> > > men added to the law of God's making. Those clean hands and that pure
> > > heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are
> > > very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees
> > > of every age. Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of
> > > God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are
> > > poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve
> > > to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But
> > > if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a
> > > device to free him from the claim of this duty.
>
> > Where does Matthew Henry disagree with what I said?
>
> Again you try to wriggle out. Either you really do not understand even
> the babble or you try to waffle ( more likely)
>
> Pharisees had "traditions" by which they conducted themselves.
According to Jesus' claims, the scribes (including Pharisees?) had
laws for others to follow but didn't follow it themselves. Or so it
would seem in the context wherehe says "Do as the scribes say but not
as they do."
> To escape from Mosaic law, they gave kids reasons such as Corban (gift to God).
Doesn't that seem familiar? To escape from Vedic animal sacrifice, the
Gita's author comes up with alternatives such as service to God.
> They said the child gave Corban instead of parents. So kids
> have nothing to give. Mosaic law demands kids do not curse parents and
> also that they look after parents. Or face death
> Jeezuz demands they be put to death and they should not follow
> Pharisee traditions giving excuses such as corban. Pharisees released
> children from giving as after corban (gift to God), it is a sacrilege
> to give to parents according to Jewish custom. Thus parents were
> providing excuses for not following Mosaic law. Jeezuz objects to
> treating Laws in such a hypocritical manner
>
> So in summary he not only wants children killed
That is not his style. His style is to deviate from the more violent
prescriptions of Mosaic law while claiming that it is others who are
not acting within the spirit of God's law.
> for cursing but also for not looking after parents
Where in Mark 7:10-12 does he criticize children for anything?
(whether cursing or not looking after parents) He criticizes only some
Pharisees in these verses.
> which he never did!
He was on the move with no gainful employment. Did he say that his
siblings who stayed put (and who presumably had occupations) ought not
to look after his parents?
uNmaiviLambi
wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:59 am, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not only have you not quoted the verses of the kind I asked for; you
> haven't quoted any verses.
You can find it yourself. I know you are resourceful. It is all over.
That is why I did not give the exact verses!
> He authored them from your point of view, that is.
Same as Gettysburg address by Lincoln. Gita was reported by Vyasa. All
Hindu literature accepts it
> According to Jesus' claims, the scribes (including Pharisees?) had
> laws for others to follow but didn't follow it themselves. Or so it
> would seem in the context wherehe says "Do as the scribes say but not
> as they do."
True
> Doesn't that seem familiar? To escape from Vedic animal sacrifice, the
> Gita's author comes up with alternatives such as service to God.
Rubbish. Hinduism is completely different from christian nonsense. You
are still unable to follow basics, schooled by christians! I leave it
to you to find out
> That is not his style. His style is to deviate from the more violent
> prescriptions of Mosaic law while claiming that it is others who are
> not acting within the spirit of God's law.
His style is nonsense, drink poison, handle snakes, kill people, buy
swords, slay people, burn them etc
> Where in Mark 7:10-12 does he criticize children for anything?
> (whether cursing or not looking after parents) He criticizes only some
> Pharisees in these verses.
Great! Kill kids is not about children but about parents!
> He was on the move with no gainful employment. Did he say that his
> siblings who stayed put (and who presumably had occupations) ought not
> to look after his parents?
Is there an exemption in Mosaic law for wanderers? Show me
P. Rajah
> On Jan 31, 12:46 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Mad Sudhan wrote:
>>> Mad Sudhan wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 6:16 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Mad Sudhan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, if I show that to you, will you admit that you are a
>>>> lying bigoted racist skunk, and then forever shut the f*ck up?
>>>> Agree to that, and I will show you the proof.
>>>>
>>>> Pathetic lying douchebag talks about honest bones!
>>>
>>> If I prove that you are a crook, dishonest, lack intelligence to
>>> debate with me, are misinformed, a Hindu basher, lack substance,
>>> an abuser indulging in ad hominem attacks and that I am
>>> intelligent, honest, never abuse, after you show the example,
>>> will you apologize unconditionally here in this forum and commit
>>> to correct your behavior?
>>>
>>> I am convinced you are all the above. Hence there is no point in
>>> having any dialogue with you till you apologize unconditionally.
>>> Let me see if you show true remorse without my help
>>
>> Why the f**k should _I_ apologize, you dirtbag? You are the one who
>> has written all kinds of nonsense, have displayed that you have
>> absolutely zero intelligence to conduct a debate and edit out
>> context in your replies.
>>
>> You wrote:
>>> Let me see if you have one honest bone in your body. Show me
>>> where I said this:
>>>
>>> "christian bible says raping babies is a sacred act"
>>
>> Wherefore you are accusing me of attributing to you something you
>> claim you never wrote. Now you have the dishonesty to edit out your
>> challenge, and pretend that you didn't make it, because you know I
>> have the proof. Furthermore, you claim that I am a Hindu-basher.
>> Let me tell you something: as painful as it is for me to say so, I
>> have to say that Jay Maharaj has more intelligence than you. At
>> least that scoundrel knows when he is beaten, and resorts to
>> changing the subject. You, on the other hand, when you are shown
>> that black is black, when you said it was green, you continue to
>> insist that it is green because that is the only way you can see
>> it. You abuse the f**k out of Christians and Muslims, calling them
>> evil cultists, murderers, pedophiles, bastards and more, saying
>> that Jesus was a bastard and Mary was a harlot, and then have the
>> f**king gall to claim that you "never abuse"? And you have the
>> goddamn nerve to call *me* a "Hindu basher"? Get the f**k out of
>> here!!
>>
You asked my to prove my "honesty" by showing where you wrote that
"christian bible says raping babies is a sacred act". Now, realizing
that you cannot even remember specifics in the torrent of trash you have
written, you are back-pedaling like the lying bastard you've always
been. Do you categorically state that you never wrote that, and will you
forever shut up if I prove that you did?
If you are not willing to do this, then don't bother replying. This is
the last time I will ask.
P. Rajah
Mad Sudhan is an utter imbecile, incapable of a single rational thought.
He is like an endlessly looping tape, never able to stop repeating the
same nonsense.
P. Rajah
> On Jan 31, 9:59 am, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 9:38 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 31, 9:32 am, uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If the author wants people to accept his opinion, he would naturally
>>> claim that Krishna said it.
>> You want verses. After I gave it, you try to escape saying this!
>
> Not only have you not quoted the verses of the kind I asked for; you
> haven't quoted any verses.
He has, copiously: verses from the Old and the New Testament which he,
unsurprisingly, misreads and quotes out of context. Verses of the kind
you asked for, he oddly seems unable to find, even though he won't admit
to it.
uNmaiviLambi
You surely lack intelligence to read anything I wrote. Read again this
and what I might have written before about the great bastard also