Freethought Nation

Have 250 million been killed in the name of Christianity?

Some years ago, I read this figure of 250 million murdered in the name of Christianity over the past nearly 2,000 years. The supporting data for this massive amount of deaths is not easy to find, so I'm collecting evidence here. In my search, I have found some interesting quotes such as the following, in response to the question of exactly how many have been slaughtered by Christ's minions.

A few things to be kept in mind: According to historian Henry Charles Lea, the Catholic Church has apparently been working in the modern era to reduce the number for which it is to be held accountable by destroying records. Moreover, records were difficult to come by in the first place because of all the destruction already over the ages. Also, there are other instances that could be blamed on religious dementia but that are not necessarily a direct result of actions taken in the name of Christ such as the Inquisition or Crusades: For example, as one commenter points out, the bubonic plague victims could be blamed on Christianity if we factor in the fact that it was spread widely after the pope declared cats to be the mediums of the devil and destroyed many of them, leaving Europe open to a rat infestation that spread the plague. In this case, it was clearly Christian, anti-"witch" propaganda that led to this disaster, which took the lives of millions.


The figure of 250 million can be found in this article written by a Muslim. Obviously, he should probably include the 270 million body count in the name of Islam but his analysis and figures regarding Christianity seem sound enough overall.


Note that this fellow claims this figure of 250 million is "conservative." Also, again the simple fact is that Islam is actually bloodier than Christianity by some 20 million, also according to "conservative" estimates.

Here's a quote from Bill Warner's article "Tears of Jihad":


Back to Christianity, a figure proffered many years ago of nine million women killed for being "witches" and other heretics has been challenged of late, with "Religious Tolerance" downsizing the figure considerably by only including those murdered during a short period of "Burning Times." Yet, if you read about the destruction to Europe during a period of many centuries, this number is not out of the question. As Barbara Walker states in Man Made God (211):


As editor and publisher of Man Made God, I added the note marked here as [1] but no. 74 in the original (315-316), as follows:


For more on the subject of Christianity genocide of European pagans, see this thread:

Pagan Destruction Chronology (314-870 C.E)

And this article:

Victims of the Christian Faith

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

More victims of Christianity, as also included in the "Pagan Destruction Chronology" in the post above.


And here's another site of the same sort:

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Hello Acharya,

You certainly took a shotgun approach in attacking the Church and there are a lot of charges to address here, so I will start with the first one in regards to Cyril of Juruselem and work my way from there.

I am not sure where you are getting your history on Cyril, but let’s address the main accusations with the following.

"Your outline of the history has several flaws:
1. Your accusation that a Priest named Peter killed Hypatia is incorrect. Peter was not a pries, he was a lector. A Priest named Peter did not kill Hypatia, nor did the clergy, the Alexadrians led by a lector named Peter did it.
2. Cyril did not instigate the mob against Hypatia nor was he there when they killed her.

Catholics acknowledge Hypatia's integrity and the tragedy of her death at the hand of radicals. Hypatia was highly-respected teacher of neo-Platoism. Hypatia was a friend of Orestes, the Prefect (Governor) of Egypt and Orestes was very fond of Hypatia who influenced him towards a neo-pagan set of beliefs.

It was a very violent time in history. Lots of riots. Cyril and Orestes had a falling out because Cyril had a mob of monks come and drive the Jews, who had been killing Christians, out of Alexandria. Many Christians at that time believed that Hypatia prevented a reconciliation between the prefect (Orestes) and patriarch (Cyril). A mob led by a lector, named Peter, dragged her to a church and tore her flesh with potsherds 'til she died. This brought great disgrace, says Socrates, on the Church of Alexandria and on its bishop; but a lector at Alexandria was not a cleric (Scr., V, xxii). (note: this is not Socrates the Greek philospher of 400 years earlier but rather well repected man of the time.)

The story about how Hypatia died during a riot is true, but the statement that Cyril was responsible is a different matter. Socrates did not lay the blame of Cyril. Cyril was not there according to him. Damascius, indeed, accuses Cyril but he is a late authority and a hater of Christians.”

Shall we continue with each charge one at a time?

Thank you, but since you have failed even to be accurate on who exactly is making any contentions, I fail to see why I should consider your opinion to be either of interest or authority in this matter. I did not say any of the things you are attributing to me.

Apparently you did not even notice that I was quoting others? Perhaps you need to take up the issue with the originators of these contentions, the citations for which you have failed to notice.

Even so, you start off with a generalization that is not only unprovable but highly unlikely: "Catholics acknowledge Hypatia's integrity and the tragedy of her death at the hand of radicals." Which Catholics? All Catholics? Who exactly says they were "radicals?" The point is conceded that Hypatia was brutally and viciously murdered by Christian fanatics.

If you insist on wasting our time, go right ahead. I have no interest in and no time to nitpick back-and-forth on this issue, and I find it reprehensible that anyone would attempt both to justify and negate the Church's abysmal history.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Hot damn, Acharya, you rock! Wish you were Queen of the World!

HP

You chose to post sources you felt were reliable, you embraced those statements and placed them in a public forum, you were the one who felt they were valid evidence, you published it, openly, to prove your views, you are therefore responsible for it. It is rather rude to post something as stated truth, and then deflect by saying, and I quote “Apparently you did not even notice that I was quoting others? Perhaps you need to take up the issue with the originators of these contentions, the citations for which you have failed to notice.”

Don’t you think it is rather intellectually dishonest to throw the people whom you quoted under the bus the moment a counter argument is presented?

If you are unwilling to be accountable for using the statements of others, perhaps you should not source them?

However, the following statement, in your words, tells me in unequivocal terms that you have no interest in debating this.

“If you insist on wasting our time, go right ahead. I have no interest in and no time to nitpick back-and-forth on this issue, and I find it reprehensible that anyone would attempt both to justify and negate the Church's abysmal history.”

Your response was unfortunately predictable, as an apologist, I have been in many of these debates, and it generally follows the same course.

1. Accusations are made. (You’re first posting).
2. Said accusations are addressed in a respectful manner and questions about the accusation are raised. (My Response).
3. A disavowal of responsibility for the information is made. (You said “Perhaps you need to take issue with the originators of these contentions).
4. A deflection is made by the accuser (See your statement above).
5. A general statement casting the subject of attack in a negative light is made that has little to do with what was addressed. (See your second statement, which I quoted).
6. An attempt at avoidance is made. (I will quote from part of your second statement. “. I have no interest in and no time to nitpick back-and-forth on this issue.”)

But I digress.

It saddens me a great deal that you are so blinded by your own system of beliefs that you are unwilling to take an unbiased look at history. I was certainly open to hearing you out and addressing all the contentions you fallaciously posted but refuse to take responsibility for.

I think the real secret here is that you don’t realize how religious you are. Please, allow me to elaborate.

For all of your claims of non-belief and non-religiosity, you certainly appear to embrace all the trappings of religion when looked at critically. You very clearly preach a gospel of secular humanism with an enthusiasm that would make the most rabid fundamentalist look mild by comparison. How this “Secular Humanism” or “Mythicism” as you call it, cannot be seen as a religious philosophy, dare I say dogma of reason, ethics, and justice is beyond me. So as far as I can tell, you certainly are religious, sans a deity, in the extreme. You certainly believe, evangelize, and make every attempt to spread your “religion” in the same intolerant way that you accuse the “religious” among us of doing. Does the saying “dear pot, stop calling me black, yours truly, the kettle” ring a bell here? I mean really, to make the statement that the secular world view is the only acceptable world-view compatible with our scientific knowledge of the laws of nature and not call it a closed minded religion is contradictory in and of itself. It also begs the question “who decides what’s right?”

As for your belief’s, or lack there-of not being a religion. In the classic sense, where there is simply non-belief, I agree, it would not be a religion. However, what you do, what you write, and what your promote reeks of a crusade like zealotry and religious promiscuity in every sense of the word. You attribute to nature, what the Christian or deist attributes to God, if this is not worship, I don’t know what is (A Christian would define it as idolatry of nature, science, self, or whatever you want to call it). You certainly preach a secular belief system, and encourage others to believe as you do, again, how this cannot be classified as religious zeal is beyond me. You unequivocally serve your own God, but we can just call it your own desires, lust, anger, belief system, etc. (Again, how this cannot be called a religion is beyond me, it certainly meets the definition of one). You do, in fact, preach a secular gospel. You unequivocally have their own God, holding yourself out as your own God, and preach that no other belief other than the secular gospel you preach can make any sense. How this could possibly be seen as anything other than a scientific materialistic religion is beyond me. It has every single trapping of a religion, and every single trapping of a fundamentalist zeal. Just listening and reading your materials makes it obvious to any-one reviewing it that you are on a Crusade. Simple non-belief does not belay a crusade, never did and never will. Further, you not only practice a religion, you encourage others do so. Oh my yes, this is religious. You are on a crusade, your passion give you away. You are on a quest, you are serving your God, you have your ultimate authority, your lust, your desires. You have priorities that orders your life, and so engage in idolatry of self in lieu of a Deity. Don’t tell me your belief system is not a religion, it certainly has all the trappings of one. In the end, you have become, for lack of a better term, exactly, and I mean exactly what you accuse Christians of being.

But don’t take my word for it, the definition of religion according to Websters includes “Powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe” (Which certainly does not exclude natural or accidental powers does it?) It also further defines religion separately, key word (separately) as, and I quote, “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” So tell me again your belief system is not a religion?

I will give you a lot of credit on one point. You understand something better than most Christians I know. You very clearly understand that if God is God, then you are not. It is simply that you very clearly understand (in a hypothetical sense) that if God is the potter and you are the clay, God has every right to you, past, present, and future, and you Hate that, you hate it from the core of their being.

Now I can respect your view while disagreeing. I can hear your view without becoming angry, bitter, or hateful.

The question I have is, can you?

Oh fantastic, do you have some on youtube or elsewhere? I'd like to see them ... what name should I search under in order to find them?


Nice asinine ad hom. What "beliefs" are you talking about? Are you trying to deny that Christians throughout history have killed?


Again, nice ad hom. Is that part of your great debate skills? Because Acharya's not part of your murderous cult and caught you with your pants down, she's a "religious fanatic?" LOL.

Yep, looks like you specialize in revisionism. It's an especially dishonest form of Xian apologetics. You are not to be trusted at all, SirMick or whatever your name is.

I already have another thread on this topic titled How many has God killed? It's embarrassing to watch you attempt to deny all the killing throughout the bible. Funny they never mentioned it much during my 20 years as a saved, baptized evangelical.

Would Jesus support your revisionist views?

Oh, and by the way, the first sentence in your second post is a deflection off the fact that you are so inept you couldn't even tell where Acharya was quoting someone else. If you had any integrity, you would have acknowledged that you made a mistake and started from there. Acharya didn't write the quote you pretended to pick apart. If you weren't emotionally invested and ready to fly off the handle, you might have noted that fact and continued with the facts in question instead of immediately assuming that it was Acharya who was wrong. Apparently, that flawed approach is another of your "debate tactics" that you've practiced so well.

Also, she clearly showed that you don't know what you're talking about and just tossed out meaningless generalizations as part of some Christian apologist agenda. Despite nitpicking and any possible small inaccuracies, the bottom line will be that millions of people have been murdered in the name of Christianity, and no amount of dishonest apologetics and revisionism will change that fact.

"I can hear your view without becoming angry, bitter, or hateful." Yeah, that's why you immediately came out swinging and slinging a slew of ad homs at Acharya - even your last sentence is a reflection of your bitterness, attempting to impugn her integrity again. And what about YOUR integrity? You don't care about all this horror caused by the Christian cult, but instead you're going to make all sorts of disrespectful remarks to Acharya?


And what the hell do you know of Acharya to be making such demented psychoanalysis? You don't know her at all. Just more typical Christian apologist ad homs deflecting away from the fact the cult you spend your life defending is a murderous ideology responsible for the tortures and deaths of many millions of people.

Let me ask you, why are you defending this sick cult that has killed and enslaved millions?

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Freethinkaluva22

In response to your questions…..

@@“Oh fantastic, do you have some on youtube or elsewhere? I'd like to see them ... what name should I search under in order to find them?”

- I do live debates, primarily with Protestant Apologist, and always in the interest of ecumenism.


@@ “What "beliefs" are you talking about? Are you trying to deny that Christians throughout history have killed?”

- I fail to see any quote where I denied that Christians have killed. I am challenging the way it is being presented, there is a difference.

@@ Yep, looks like you specialize in revisionism. It's an especially dishonest form of Xian apologetics. You are not to be trusted at all, SirMick or whatever your name is.

- I fail to see a quote where I revised history????? I challenged claims made, and corrected a mistake in regards to the claim that a “Priest” named Peter incited the riot that killed Hypatia. Peter was not a Priest, see above for clarification. You must have missed that part? I was also very clear about being open to hearing the opposing point of view, you must have missed that part too? Perhaps you should try to be less emotional?


@@I already have another thread on this topic titled How many has God killed? It's embarrassing to watch you attempt to deny all the killing throughout the bible. Funny they never mentioned it much during my 20 years as a saved, baptized evangelical.

- Saved, baptized evangelical? Bad theology leads to bad philosophy I guess, but you would already agree with me on that point I assume?
- It is hard for me to believe that a Bible Reading and Believing Evangelical missed the veritable blood baths in the old testament, maybe they don’t read that part in Evangelical churches? I am just assuming based on your own statement. But I digress yet again, that really isn’t your point is it?

@@”Would Jesus support your revisionist views?”

- Again, not sure what part of history I revised? Maybe you could clarify for me? Your point is what exactly?

In closing, I fail to see where you addressed any of my points. Please quit deflecting.

Regards,

You didn't answer my question. "do you have some on youtube or elsewhere? I'd like to see them ... what name should I search under in order to find them?" Don't you have a link to a website of your live debates on video?

It's quite clear that you don't like the way the original post has been presented due to your attempt to re-frame the argument deflecting away from the actual issue at hand in order to direct your attention at the individual. It's more convenient for your argument to paint the author as a secular humanist fundy than to deal with the quarter of a billion killed in the name of "your" religion, not including the 2/3rds of the non-believers who will be wiped out in the world's largest genocide throughout all of history as claimed in the book of Revelation. Today, that would mean the murder of around 4 billion people. Nice God and peaceful religion ya got there.

So, just come out with it, SirMick, you are here to shore up your faith at all costs. You are not interested in facts, evidence or truth, you are only interested in making sure that Christianity is presented in a positive light, even if it means attacking real, living humans. So, let me ask you, would you support a new, modern-day Inquisition to destroy not only the non-believers but also those who aren't quite Christian enough to suit your views?

Yes, I see a red flag in the mere couple posts by you already that suggests to me that revisionism comes easy to you and you've just inadvertently admitted it when you claim you want to change the way the info in the original post is "presented." How would you prefer the murder of 250 million people in the name of your religion since Christianity was created be presented? I have seen plenty of revisionism from many apologists who just want to present their religion in a good light.

Oh, sure they do but, it's just presented in a very positive light i.e. revised.

From where I stand, I only see two points from you:

1. You desire the mass murder of 250 million people in the name of Christianity to be presented in a positive light.

2. To attempt to paint Acharya as a "rabid fundamentalist."

Your blatant select perception is as transparent as glass. In your interest of presentation you chose to present Acharya - someone who you clearly know nothing about - as a "rabid fundamentalist" for pointing out the murder of 250 million people throughout Christianity's history, which you prefer to presented in a good light.

So, you really couldn't care less about real, living human beings - you're only interested in shoring up your faith and presenting Christianity in a good light regardless of all the horrors and atrocities omitted.

Am I correct?

Even if 100 of these contentions are factually inaccurate, to whatever slight extent, so what? Much of the rest of Christianity's has been atrocious. How are you going to apologize for the Christian Inquisition, organized slavery and the dark ages?

And you've never posted information that you yourself didn't check every claim but that made the point anyway? Every single one of your references in your whole life have been verified in reputable publications? Really? That's not even possible. So, we should hold you accountable for every person you've ever quoted? No, your illogical comments are just trying to cover up the fact that you are so incompetent you didn't even realize Acharya was quoting somebody else.

Should you be held accountable for the bible every time you quote scripture? Where are the footnotes and citations to the primary source evidence for all the claims made throughout the bible? What are the qualifications and credentials of the bible authors?

Now, back to the subject, even if you nitpick these facts Christianity will still be responsible for the tortures and deaths of a great many millions.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Well,

Here we go again.

@@@You didn't answer my question. "do you have some on youtube or elsewhere? I'd like to see them ... what name should I search under in order to find them?" Don't you have a link to a website of your live debates on video?

I think the real question you are asking is “what am I dealing with?” I’m sorry, and you are who?

- Now your next step is to try and call me out by questioning my integrity or with an insult of some kind, am I right? Your move.

@@ “It's quite clear that you don't like the way the original post has been presented due to your attempt to re-frame the argument deflecting away from the actual issue at hand in order to direct your attention at the individual. It's more convenient for your argument to paint the author as a secular humanist fundy than to deal with the quarter of a billion killed in the name of "your" religion, not including the 2/3rds of the non-believers who will be wiped out in the world's largest genocide throughout all of history as claimed in the book of Revelation. Today, that would mean the murder of around 4 billion people. Nice God and peaceful religion ya got there.”

- Do you believe your own BS? My first posting was an offer to address each and every charge, starting with Cyril. That offer still stands, would you like to start with Cyril or would you like to continue this charade?

- My second post, was in response to the answer that there would be no debate. And I stand by the accusation of secular humanistic fundamentalism.

- Your comment about Revelations, irrelevant. Has not happened, and that was never part of the discussion. Are you accusing the church of a future genocide too? Please, feel free to add that to the death toll as well, it is no more ridiculous that claiming the Church killed 270 million people (which I very much want to address, starting with Cyril and working down point by point from there).

@@ “So, just come out with it, SirMick, you are here to shore up your faith at all costs. You are not interested in facts, evidence or truth, you are only interested in making sure that Christianity is presented in a positive light, even if it means attacking real, living humans. So, let me ask you, would you support a new, modern-day Inquisition to destroy not only the non-believers but also those who aren't quite Christian enough to suit your views?”

- Wrong, I am interested in moving through the accusations point by point to see if the numbers really do add up in light of the historical record.

- Why would I support an inquisition? I am not the fundamentalist here, and I really don’t care what belief system you have or don’t have. In fact, did I at any time say you should convert to Christianity? If I did, please point me to that quote.

- I do however care about spreading flat out lies about the number of deaths that the Church is responsible for. Like I said, we can go point by point, starting with Cyril.

Now lets look at your statement that 250 million were murdered in the name of Christianity, and some of the people that you lay at the feet of the church.

- Napoleon (Are you kidding me? He is on record threatening to destroy the Catholic Church. I mean really, you are going to hold the Church responsible for Napoleon’s choices? Please, get real).

- “16th and 17th century Ireland: English troops "pacified and civilised" Ireland” (Again, really? The Church is responsible for the actions of an English King and his soldiers? Please, be honest).

- Several other sources that were either Secular, or had nothing to do with the Church were mentioned, however I think the silent reader gets the point, the Church is being blamed for deaths it could not possibly have been responsible for.

The Catholic Church at it’s height of Power in the 9th – 14th centuries could not have killed 250 million people. In fact, the population of the ENTIRE WORLD never even passed 1 billion until the 19th century (1804 if memory serves) and Europe did not pass 250 million until the 20th century, so your numbers are fallacious on every level unless the Pope ordered some Genocide in the past few decades that we all seem to have missed? So where exactly and when exactly did all these deaths that were ordered by the Church occur? The wars of the 20th century were secular Wars, the Communist were Atheist, and Hitler a known Occultist, so where and when could the Church have directly murdered 250 million people? (more than the entire population of Europe up until the 20th century I might add). As I said before, do you really believe your own BS or do you lie on purpose?

Let me be real clear on this (although I am sure you will ignore the acknowledgement), the Church has culpability for the history that it had a direct part in, however 250 million is a complete fallacy and is in fact a slanderous number. Further, it is in fact libel in written form, with no purpose other than to harm the reputation of the Church and expose it to hatred and bigotry. What you are doing is dishonest on every level. I think it is time that you either point by point account for and substantiate the accuracy of each of your sources so they can be investigated, substantiate each death you are accusing the church of, or apologize for using grossly inaccurate numbers, questionable accounting methods and abhorrent lies.

Regards,

Well, you were the one bragging about your debate experience, remember? So, you still can't answer my simple question. I'll have to assume at this point that you're making all that up since you seem unable to back it up.


Oh, I thought I was clear the first time, we're not interested in your Christian revisionism.


You've already admitted that it's the PRESENTATION you're most concerned with. Go ahead and admit that you don't want your religion exposed for what it really is.


I see, so it's whatever argument suits you at any given time - "I stand by the accusation of secular humanistic fundamentalism." You don't know anything about Acharya but you've already made assorted false accusations.


If you were paying attention you'd realize that the 250 million number is a total over the last 2,000 years since the invention of Christianity. Nevertheless, why are you surprised that the population didn't pass 1 billion with all the killing going on due to religion?


You're probably right, those 11,000 reported molestation cases by Catholic priests are OUR fault. The Inquisitions, crusades, slavery, dark ages - all our fault.


Wow, you really are a Christian apologist. Few could top your arrogance and conceit. And dishonesty for that matter.

We can tally up over 33 million deaths just in the Old Testament alone, SirMick.
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com ... -list.html

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Oh my,

Haven’t you done a good job misdirecting. I offered to go point by point (more than once), yet you continue to pull every trick out of your hat to avoid this. Again, shall we start with Cyril? If the facts are on your side, you have nothing to fear right? So I’ll try this yet again, and be real clear about this. Shall we start with Cyril and work our way through each charge one at a time? It is painfully obvious that you have not read the writings of Socrates on this period of time, nor the counter arguments, nor the Bishops responses. (again, not the ancient Greek philosopher, see above for clarification)



- Yeah, you keep believing whatever makes you comfortable there buddy.



- This is an avoidance tactic in order to misdirect from the debate in the purest sense.
- If this is true, then exactly why are you responding?
- Is this not close minded? It certainly contradicts your handle there “Free Thinker”. I thought free-thinkers looked at all sides and drew a conclusion based on all the evidence. I must have been hoping for too much.
- I find that when people lack reasonable answers that this is an often used avoidance tactic. Like I said, point by point, we can let the evidence shed light on who is revising, exaggerating, and flat out lying fairly easily can’t we?



- I am very concerned about dishonest presentations. Your presentation for one could promote violence and bigotry towards Christians, I am very concerned about it. And rightfully so, given that the first few hundred years of Christianity saw Christians covered in Pitch, tied to stakes and set on fire to light the way to the coliseum. Christians are still killed for their beliefs in many parts of the world, Africa, Asia, the Middle East. But I digress, that is exactly what you would like isn’t it?
- I am also concerned with the blatant inaccuracies and flat out lies in your statements, which I have addressed, numerous times, up to and including lumping secular leaders like Napoleon, who threatened to destroy the church into the death toll that you erroneously claim the church is responsible for.
- To be clear, I have no concerns about reviewing the Church and it’s role in history, nor do I have any concerns about what "it really is". You however, given the constant avoidance tactics that you keep using to avoid the debate, apparently do.




- Sorry Pal, but this is just baseless. Why you may ask? Because her Biography is very clear about her beliefs, and also mentions her spiritual outlook. Please see the link to re-familiarize yourself with her. http://platypus-thatslife-cestlavie.blo ... raphy.html
- Want to try this one again? In fact, from her Bio, there is the following, and I quote “She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, a division of the Council for Secular Humanism.”. But I digress yet again, you obviously, and ignorantly assumed I did not do my home-work before entering into dialogue.


- Are you really going to continue to perpetuate this lie? Any examination of the historical population levels in Europe during the past 20 centuries renders this number moot no matter how you slice it up. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.
- I noticed you avoided answering how you could count Napoleon and some of the others as Church sanctioned homicide, but that really doesn’t matter does it, because even if you lump them in, the numbers still won’t work.



- Can you quote one dishonest statement that I made? Please, elaborate and humor me, inquiring minds want to know.
- I do question you integrity however, especially given the fact you won’t address lumping in Napoleon, the British army, and other secular leaders in with the death toll you are attributing to the church. If this is not flat out dishonesty on your part, I don’t know what is.



- First item, the priests who abused children are vipers, they are scum-bags, and they should pay for their crimes ten times over. Further, anyone involved in the cover up, concealment, and perpetuation of those crimes needs to be held accountable. You won’t get any argument from me on this issue, you and I are in full agreement that these priests are the worst sort of human scum that could walk this earth.
- I am certain that I am more dissapointed about the abuse than you are.
- You really need to make up your mind, either you are interested in debating the issues and laying out the evidence, Starting with Cyril, and work our way up to the Crusades, or, as you stated, and I quote “Oh, I thought I was clear the first time, we're not interested in your Christian revisionism.” In which case, why bother with the Crusades at all?
- As you can see by my above response regarding the child abusers, I will give fair open forum to all the above accusations, and address each one in due time. Starting with Cyril first. Don’t jump ahead to history that you have not even agreed to touch upon.




- This is a complete Joke. 30 million in Noah’s flood? You have got to be off your rocker, kidding, or both. You are not a biblical literalist, so spare me the pretense of attributing the great flood to the death tally.
- To further harm your credibility, you are crediting all the other deaths to a Deity who you claim doesn’t exist. I mean really, is this some kind of sick joke? Either you believe that there is a God, and he did this, or you deny the truth of it, you can’t have it both ways, make up your mind please.
- This exemplifies the very definition of hypocrite on your part. So again, is God a made up Mythological Deity or is he Guilty of these murders? I mean really, this is just plain dumb and you should know better than to use a God you claim is Mythological to support this idiocy. Pure logic dictates that if God is Mythological then he cannot be guilty for these deaths. Then again, maybe you are a closet believer?

Finally, for the silent reader. Note how Mr. Free-Thinker refuses to address the charges that have been laid down against the Church. Note how he makes every effort to escape a real debate and review of the facts through avoidance, and I quote in his words. “Oh, I thought I was clear the first time, we're not interested in your Christian revisionism.”
Note how he will only support a version of history that agrees with his thinking, even if he has to accuse a Deity he claims is Mythological of murders, that by his own logic, this God could not possibly be guilty of. Note how he has failed to address the accusations that have been made here. Note how he is unwilling to put his information up against mine, (See his quote above) in an open forum so you can judge and research which is the truth for yourself. You see, he doesn’t really want to debate the facts, his mind is already closed to reviewing history in an unbiased manner. He is only interested in fallacious accusations and exaggerated death tolls, even to the extend of accusing a God he claims is Mythological of murder (which is a contradiction in and of itself). Also, to the silent reader, research all of history, look at all the events and facts surrounding the events, and then make your own judgment.

For anyone interested in learning the Catholic View of events, the following links will provide you with a multitude of information from a different perspective.

http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm
http://www.catholictelevision.org/

Remember, a real free-thinker looks at all sides of an argument and comes to a conclusion before making a judgment.

I also want to close with the fact that although these discussion become heated, and they should, because the are deeply held beliefs, I have nothing personal against Free-Thinker or Acharya, and wish them well.

For the umpteenth time, we're not interested in your Christian revisionism. I see no reason to take you seriously, you couldn't even figure out that Acharya was quoting others regarding the 250 million number even though she provided the sources. We're just not interested in your nitpicking or your opinion. We've already established why you're really here above.


Ah, that's not really accurate at all is it? You are fine with dishonest presentations so long as it puts your religion in a good light.


That comment is probably more of a display of your habit to attack anyone who exposes your religion. We don't promote violence or bigotry towards anyone here at all so, this is just more of your selective perception. Christianity certainly doesn't have any moral high ground on violence or bigotry whatsoever.

Many if not most of us here have Christian friends and loved ones. That libelous comment is just another apologist tactic. Sounds like a canned objection apologetics minions pull out of their asses in order to smear people who don't believe in their cult.


Sounds like more revisionism again - the early martyrdom stories are mostly bogus. Cite your sources, please.


Mostly for trying to push their religion onto others, such as in Muslim nations, where all other religions are illegal. There are still witch hunts by Christians in Africa too. And no, we don't support murder, violence, hatred, bigotry or prejudice in the name of any religion nor atheism. We're quite fed-up with such barbaric behaviors across the board.

"that is exactly what you would like isn’t it?" That's just such a disgusting calumny. Again, a canned smear designed to pummel us into submission to belief in fabulous fairytales.

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 308#p13308

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7413268.stm

ME "I see, so it's whatever argument suits you at any given time - "I stand by the accusation of secular humanistic fundamentalism." You don't know anything about Acharya but you've already made assorted false accusations."

LOL, whoops you really stuck your foot in your mouth there didn't you? That so-called bio is from someone who calls himself "Platypus," it's from 07 and I have no idea who it is but Acharya hasn't been on that committee since 2004. In fact, those rotten "humanists" were abusive, so she's hardly in their camp. So, much for your "homework." It must have only consisted of searching for whatever dirt you can dig up - you obviously didn't make any effort to check your source.

It's just all about smearing Acharya personally, isn't it? We've established that from the very beginning with you. Always distracting away from the facts by pointing fingers elsewhere and trying to make the critic look bad. Too bad you fail - or does it just take falsehoods and smears to succeed?

Despite all your babbling, nitpicking, deflecting and smearing, the fact is that Christianity is responsible for the tortures and deaths of millions of people.

ME "”If you were paying attention you'd realize that the 250 million number is a total over the last 2,000 years since the invention of Christianity. Nevertheless, why are you surprised that the population didn't pass 1 billion with all the killing going on due to religion?”


You clearly didn't check the sources or citations. What makes you think that at that time there weren't 30 million people on the entire earth? The flood killed them ALL, except for Noah and his family - didn't you know that?

Oh, you must be a young earth creationist! Or you truly believe in Adam, Eve and the talking snake, so there couldn't be more than, what, a few thousand people at the time? That's laughable - you must be off your rocker, dude! There were probably millions in China alone.

The time period of Noah is claimed to be around 2,400 BCE. Several scholars cited at Wikipedia estimates the human population in the third millennium BCE to be around 30 million. Biraben's population estimate in 200BCE is 230 Million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com ... html#flood

It's "laughable" to suggest - knowing there are almost 7 billion on earth today - that a mere 4,000 years ago there were 30 million. But it's not laughable to believe that God commanded a Hebrew man to build a huge boat and fill it with two or seven of hordes of animals, all happily living together to go on to repopulate thousands of species. We live in topsy-turvy world, obviously.


There's evidence of around half a Billion Egyptians over a 3,000 year span. So, over the 2,000 year time span of Christianity we only need an average of 125,000 murders per year to reach 250 million. Obviously, it is quite possible and they wasted no time getting started.

Now, either there was a flood that wiped out the world except Noah and few others or the bible is wrong - which is it? SirMick, before you start calling people liars, you may want to get your facts straight.


LOL, I knew this was coming - as I said before, you are not to be trusted. I expect to see the typical apologist hand-waving dismissals. You haven't been accurate on most of your claims thus far.

That's just not an intelligent argument - what it shows is your own inability to comprehend. What we're pointing out is that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE God has murdered all those people. That's YOUR belief, not mine. And we're showing what a sick belief it is - or what a sick god it would be, if it were all true, like bible-thumpers claim it is. So, harping on this point just shoots yourself in the foot. Like I say, those are YOUR insane beliefs, not mine. I'm just pointing them out to you. And they don't seem to bother you at all. In fact, you're just denying and dismissing them, like I said above.


Been there, done that - that's how I know not to trust you. You're not on any moral high ground here, remember? You're only here to PRESENT your religion in a good light and smear those who expose your religion for what it really is. A person with a conscience would be embarrassed to come in here and try to defend the heinous crimes against humanity committed in the name of your religion.

Nice try, but we HAVE looked at both sides, which should be obvious since we know Christianity very well. Acharya was raised a Christian - as many of us here were - and I was a baptized and saved Christian for over 20 years. So, who's not looking at both sides? We know Christianity - and we know myth when we see it. Apparently, you don't. Not my problem. Like us, you can get out of this cult. And stop persecuting nonbelievers all over again. It's YOUR ancestors too who were murdered in the tally laid out above.

In any event, nobody is stopping you from doing your own tally. Go for it! You can create your own blog! After you're through with your revisionist agenda I'll clean up the mess you've made.


In closing, we thank you for your sentiment, if it is genuine. As I say, most of us have friends and family members who are Christian. We are simply talking about an ideology that needs to be dissected because of its abuses.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Have 250 million been killed in the name of Christianity?

I find this question very difficult to answer personally. Since Christianity like all religions have strangely enough changing absolute truths. without any absolutes, the term itself have no definition.

People are killed in the past and present with intent to gain/show/use power. What cover is used to conceal or justify does not really matter unless you have belief in religion. From my point of view I find it hard to accept that something I do not believe in is responsible for something.

Christianity like all other religions have as far as I know, very very few absolute truths. With so incredible few absolute truths it comes down to individual interpretation and understanding. "Have 250 million been killed in the name of Christianity?", is easily answered yes. But is killing in the name of anything a valid cause? Is it the true motivator that explains causality, and a scientific explanation of action/reaction.

I saw someone mention "victims of Christianity". From my personal perspective as non-religious I see it somewhat differently, and would perhaps rephrase it to "victims of human power struggle, concealed by *insert any random reason usable to hide real motivation to justify actions*" .

A discussion based on Christianity as "good or bad", is a discussion based on religious principles. Good or bad are views that only find support in peoples belief. And with this in mind, at least based on my personal opinion, I always try to explain and understand actions with causality as foundation.

Absolute truths are only absolute until replaced by new absolute truths. That`s the jist of it.

_________________
Eyvitar firna - er maðr annan skal, þess er um margan gengr guma; heimska ór horskum - gerir hölða sonu - sá inn máttki munr.

Never place blame on man, because it happens to all. No matter how wise, a fool he becomes, when love steals his powers.

Hávamál

>>>Have 250 million been killed in the name of Christianity? And how about the 270 million killed in the name if Islam?<<<

Are we keeping score now? And what prize does the winner get?

Personally, I don't know what the numbers are. I can guess that many hundreds of thousands have been killed, at the very least, in one or another of the religious wars and persecutions that the professional religions have engineered down through the centuries. Quite possibly the numbers reach into the millions or hundred millions. But were all of these in the name of one religion or another? How do we know? And what do we mean by "in the name of?"

I suspect that realistically speaking, many of these wars and persecutions were ignited by or enabled by religious leaders who claimed they were to be fought for the benefit of and on the authority of one god or another. I have no way in hell of knowing how many of those who fought and/or killed in these pastimes were motivated directly by a desire to do what they thought was the will of their god. Human nature being what it is, however, I strongly suspect that most soldiers on such campaigns were primarily interested in grabbing some loot to become pay their bills and gambling debts, to show off their "heroic" qualities in hope of getting laid more often and in hopes of polishing their reputations with the other guys in their unit or simply because it seemed that they should get on the bandwagon so people wouldn't look at them funny. I doubt that very many of them were personally interested in killing for god or goddess. The religious motivation was more likely nothing but a pious fiction to cover the real personal motives and to make it all seem less like plain bloody, violent stupidity.

And I cannot help but think that whatever god or gods there might be probably have little interest in endorsing bloody, violent stupidity. What would it do for them anyway? Surely, the creatrix of the universe, Lady Eris, She What Done It All, has more important fish to fry--or to slice and wrap around a ball of sticky rice. I have it on good authority that Eris fancies sushi. Or a good chicken vindaloo at times. Or goat. Or lamb. Or even. . . <G>

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
reply to this post