Saturday 24 February 2024

Forgiveness comes without blood

 by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

What exactly is the cause behind the fascination with blood sucking vampires in the western culture that has given rise to a plethora of vampire themed movies like Twilight and the like? Christianity is the predominant religion in the west. It spends so much time talking about drinking blood and its importance for the attainment of “eternal life”. Could it be that this blood based salvation/atonement doctrine is the impetus behind the popular culture phenomenon of vampires? In the vampire myth the creature sustains its existence by consuming blood. In Christian theology to attain eternal life one must accept the blood of Jesus and in Catholicism in particular the partaking of the Eucharist which involves the drinking and eating of the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is foundational. Can you see the parallel? Is it possible that the popular vampire myth has its roots in the Christian obsession with blood? I leave that for the readers to dwell upon. In this article we shall explore the issue of forgiveness in Christianity and if what it teaches is coherent and true or just plain false.
As we have mentioned above in Christian theology the shedding of Jesus’ blood is foundational. In fact, it is the key to forgiveness and salvation. One Christian blogger named John Chingford wrote an article entitled “Reply to a Rabbi Why There Can’t Be Forgiveness Without Blood Sacrifice” in which he argues for the Christian case that blood is absolutely necessary to render void the sins of man. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary in its commentary on Hebrews 9 says, “God’s principle is that blood must be shed before sin can be forgiven (Lev. 17:11).”[1] The People’s New Testament Commentary on Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission. Every sin under the law required atonement, and no atonement could be made without blood.” [2] The average Christian says that the only way for sins to be absolved or atoned is through the blood of Jesus.
When we examine the Bible closely we see that what is preached by Christians and Hebrews 9:22 which says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” are not compatible with the overwhelming verses and passages found in both the Old and New Testaments that convey the idea of forgiveness without the need of anyone’s blood, Jesus or otherwise. In Mark 1:4 we read,
“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
This was years before the alleged crucifixion ever took place. There was no blood involved. He was calling for the remission of sins from the baptism of repentance. The People’s New Testament says that John in the above verse, “makes the temple sacrifices unnecessary for forgiveness and reconciliation with God…”[3] which means that blood is not really necessary for forgiveness of sins after all! In the next chapter in Mark 2, verse 5 we read the following,
“When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Where was the blood atonement to remove the sins of the paralytic? This too took place long before the alleged crucifixion yet he was forgiven! What was the purpose behind the alleged sacrifice of Jesus exactly? Christians tell us that it is to facilitate the forgiveness of sins which is necessary for entrance into paradise. But we have just illustrated with two explicit verses that God is not incapable of forgiving sins without the shedding of blood. Be it the blood of Jesus, sheep, ram, bulls or cows. If God can forgive without blood then that clearly renders the alleged crucifixion redundant and simply cruel, inhumane and barbaric.
In Luke 15, verses 11 to 32 we read about the parable of the Prodigal Son. In this story the son runs away from the father and goes into difficulty and suffering. He later comes to his senses and makes a return to his father. The father is overjoyed and calls for celebration. The son confesses that he sinned against heaven and against his beloved father, but because of his realisation and repentance the father remarks, “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found”. This parable captures the true and original teaching of Jesus about forgiveness and atonement. One has only to make a sincere resolution not to commit past errors and sincerely pray and ask God for forgiveness to earn His pleasure and be cleansed of sins. Blood is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
More passages dealing with this issue are cited in Salvation Only Comes Through Sacrifice!

References:
[1] Wiersbe, W.W. (2007). The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook. p. 830
[2] Boring, M.E. & Craddock, F.B. (2004). The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 701
[3] Ibid. p. 107

Friday 23 February 2024

There is No Salvation Without Sacrifice!

 by Ibn Anwar

Christians declare that there is no forgiveness or salvation except through the shedding of blood i.e. sacrifice. They will go on to say that the Islamic idea of God just forgiving a sinner's sin is unjust and they will then give their rationalisations for saying this. If asked,"Where does it say that God cannot forgive except through some sort of sacrifice?" the Christians will quote,".Without shedding of blood there is no atonement" (Hebrews 9:22)
Before I continue , I'd like to put forth several questions for you the readers to ponder on.
1. If I can show even one instance where God in the Bible forgave a person's sin without sacrificial rites how will that stand in light of the Christian notion that it is unjust for God to simply forgive?
2. If it is shown that God can forgive sin without blood sacrifice, what then is the significance of Jesus' alleged sacrifice?
3. If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only "begotten" son, Jesus and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way to forgiveness is through Jesus' death? Why would He radically change His nature when it's stated in Malachi 3:6,"For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE"?
Let us now proceed to the textual evidences.
The book of Jonah, Chapter 3 (In the NKJV, the heading "Nineveh Repents" is given)
NLT
Then the Lord spoke to Jonah a second time: "Get up and go to the great city of Nineveh, and deliver the message I have given you."
This time Jonah obeyed the Lord's command and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to see it all. On the day Jonah entered the city, he shouted to the crowds: "Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!" The people of Nineveh believed God's message, and from the greatest to the least, they declared a fast and put on burlap to show their sorrow.

When the king of Nineveh heard what Jonah was saying, he stepped down from his throne and took off his royal robes. He dressed himself in burlap and sat on a heap of ashes. Then the king and his nobles sent this decree throughout the city:
"No one, not even the animals from your herds and flocks, may eat or drink anything at all. People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence. Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us."
When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened."
In short, God forgave the people of Nineveh without a single demand for blood sacrifice.

Is intercession between us and God for forgiveness required?
"As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?" (Ezekiel 33:11)
The word "turn" here in Hebrew is shuvu which is similar with the word teshuvah which carries the same meaning as tawbah in Arabic i.e. return/repent.
"And suppose I tell some wicked people that they will surely die, but then they turn from their sins and do what is just and right. For instance, they might give back a debtor's security, return what they have stolen, and obey my life-giving laws, no longer doing what is evil. If they do this, then they will surely live and not die. None of their past sins will be brought up again, for they have done what is just and right, and they will surely live." (Ezekiel 33:14-16)

Neither sacrifice nor intercession for forgiveness is demanded
"The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent's sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child's sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness. But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done." (Ezekiel 18: 20-22)
Firstly, in the verses quoted above one can clearly see that the idea of inherited sin is totally debunked. Secondly, repentance is taught as a means for salvation and that if repentance is sought and one adheres to that which is lawful, ALL one's past sins will be forgotten. This amazing show of mercy from God is again FREE of any blood sacrifice.
The same message is repeated again in the same chapter :
"And if wicked people turn from their wickedness, obey the law, and do what is just and right, they will save their lives. They will live because they thought it over and decided to turn from their sins. Such people will not die." (Ezekiel 18: 27-28)
"Therefore, I will judge each of you, O people of Israel, according to your actions, says the Sovereign Lord. Repent, and turn from your sins. Don't let them destroy you!"(Ezekiel 18:30)

God is MERCIFUL and is not required to kill anyone for atonement of your sins!
"O my God, lean down and listen to me. Open your eyes and see our despair. See how your city?the city that bears your name?lies in ruins. We make this plea, not because we deserve help, but because of your mercy." (Daniel 9:18)

What is true sacrifice in God's eyes?
"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17)
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22)
Christians as taught by Paul ALWAYS say that obedience and works are worthless. Accept Jesus' sacrifice and you will be saved! JUST BELIEVE! Faith comes first, then works will ensue. Yet, in 1 Samuel 15:22 we see a different idea. The Christian point of view is apparently in reverse to that of God's as portrayed in 1 Samuel 15:22 ! If God said once that obedience is better than sacrifice, how can He again radically change that and reverse the idea? Hmm..I think something fishy is afoot.

AGAIN neither sacrifice nor intercession is required!

"Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. " (2 Chronicles 7:14)
"Finally, I confessed all my sins to you
and stopped trying to hide my guilt.
I said to myself, "I will confess my rebellion to the Lord."
And you forgave me! All my guilt is gone." (Psalm 32:5)

"Yet he was merciful and forgave their sins
and did not destroy them all
.
Many times he held back his anger
and did not unleash his fury!
For he remembered that they were merely mortal,

gone like a breath of wind that never returns
." (Psalm 78:38-39)
"Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. " (Micah 7:18)

"Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings." (Jeremiah 36:3)
"Let the wicked change their waysand banish the very thought of doing wrong.
Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them
.
Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously
." (Isaiah 55:7)

 

God forgives not because of lamb, sheep or goat but.
"I?yes, I alone?will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again." (Isaiah 43:25)

He forgives not because of all your sheep or goats, but, it is because He is Compassionate and Merciful!
"Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord, people avoid evil." (Proverbs 16:6)
Again, no sheep, goats, elephants, chickens or humans, but, through love of God and faithfulness of men towards his Creator is sin atoned. In addition, the verse informs us that God says that people avoid evil due to their FEAR of God which is contrary to standard Evangelical thought which says evil is avoided simply because of faith in Jesus and the crucifixion.

The following passage is rather telling
"What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?"
says the Lord. "I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fattened cattle.
I get no pleasure from the blood
of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to worship me,
who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony?
Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts;
the incense of your offerings disgusts me!
As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath
and your special days for fasting?
they are all sinful and false.
I want no more of your pious meetings.
I hate your new moon celebrations and your annual festivals.
They are a burden to me. I cannot stand them!
When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look.
Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen,
for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims.
Wash yourselves and be clean!

Get your sins out of my sight.
Give up your evil ways.
Learn to do good.
Seek justice.
Help the oppressed.
Defend the cause of orphans.
Fight for the rights of widows.

"Come now, let's settle this,"
says the Lord.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
I will make them as white as snow.
Though they are red like crimson,
I will make them as white as wool.
If you will only obey me, you will have plenty to eat.
But if you turn away and refuse to listen,
you will be devoured by the sword of your enemies. I, the Lord, have spoken!"
(Isaiah 1:11-18)
From the verses presented right from the beginning until now we see time and again God saying that the way to forgiveness and remission of sins is NOT just by believing in some sacrifice or do some sacrifice , BUT, OBEY OBEY OBEY and BE FAITHFUL TO HIM! In the above given passage of Isaiah we see that God did not just refuse to accept sacrifice but He even hated it and instead demanded REPENTANCE and OBEDIENCE. Thus after disclaiming and discrediting sacrifices, God gave them the following solutions(with no mention of sacrifice) :
1. Wash yourself and be clean
2. Give up sins
3. Learn to do good
4. Seek justice
5. Help the oppressed
6. Defend the orphans
7. Fight for widows

A Brief overview of the Islamic idea of sin and atonement
Islam like Judaism teaches that sin is not inherited. Every person is accountable for his own deeds and no one will be responsible for the error of another. The Qur'an says :
" Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden." (Surah Al-Isra', verse 15)
"And no bearer of burdens shall bear another's burden, and if one heavily laden calls another to (bear) his load, nothing of it will be lifted even though he be near of kin." (Surah Fatir, verse 18)
"Whosoever does righteous good deed it is for (the benefit of) his ownself, and whosoever does evil, it is against his ownself, and your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) servants." (Surah Fussilat, verse 46)
Islam does not consider sacrifice a method of atonement for sins even though sacrificing animals is a feature in Islam. For example, during Eid Al-Adha animals like camels or cows are slaughtered. However, this is not done in order to remit sins but rather to remember and commemorate the incident between Abraham a.s. and his son Ismail a.s. i.e. that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, which he attempted, but, God through His divine Mercy replaced that sacrifice with a ram. The Qur'an says about sacrifice :
"It is not their meat nor blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him."(Surah Al-Hajj, verse 37)
This message is somewhat similar to a Biblical verse which says:
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6)
The Qur'an like the verses in the Bible presented in this article teaches that in order to gain atonement for sins one has to sincerely ask for forgiveness to God Almighty and resolve not to repeat the same error again. The Qur'an says :
"Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped" (Surah Al-Zumar, verse 53)
"Verily! Allah Accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards, to them Allah will turn in Mercy, for Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them and he says "now have I repented indeed", nor of those who die rejecting faith: for them have we prepared a chastisement most grievous." (Surah Al-Nisa', verse 17)

Conclusion
From the overwhelming Biblical scriptures presented in this paper it is clear that blood atonement and sacrifice is not as significant or important as many Christians try to make it out to be. The fact that God had no problem and was not shy to accept the repentance of his servants free of sacrifice shows that Jesus' alleged sacrifice for the remission of sins of mankind was not really necessary on God's part. In fact, the idea seems quite contradictory to God's supreme Mercy and Compassion.
I would like to end the discussion with the following Biblical verse :
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3)

Wallahu'alam bisawab. Allah knows best.

 

Thursday 22 February 2024

The ‘Atonement’ doctrine of paganism

 The Bible rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)
Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Psalms 28:4)
According to [their] deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. (Isaiah 59:18)
For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27)
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
(Micah 6:7-8)

The doctrine of ‘atonement’ doesn’t make sense. The Church has turned Jesus into something very disgusting. The early Jewish Christians never believed in such doctrines like the ‘blood atonement’. The Bible teaches that ‘human sacrifice’ is wrong, a strictly pagan ritual, not a Jewish practice.

"God sacrificed his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their own sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."
(John Dominic Crossan, Who is Jesus? p. 145-146)

Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus’ death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted after or because of the cross. (For Christ’s Sake Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1986 pg. 75, Tom Harper

This doctrine is a blasphemy against the justice of God. It is highly unjust, inhuman and ungodly, to sacrifice the life of an innocent man, for washing off the sins of sinners. God Almighty is never unjust even in least degree, how this injustice and unkindness can ever be attributed to Him. God Almighty is Absolute and Merciful enough to forgive the sins, even without sacrifices. (Dr. Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul? p. 52)

This dogma is not only a denial of the mercy of God but also of His justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others… We fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.
(Mrs. Ulfat Aziz- Us- Samad, Islam and Christianity, International Islamic Federation of Student Organization, pp. 50-51)

The unreliability of the gospels appears to be admitted by the Church itself. The metaphysics of Christianity today is not even based on what is in the gospels. The established church is founded on the doctrine of original sin, of atonement and redemption, of the divinity of Jesus, of the divinity of the Holy Ghost and of Trinity. None of these doctrines are to be found within the gospels. They were not taught by Jesus. They were the fruits of Paul’s innovations and the influence of Greek culture and philosophy. (Muhammad Ataur- Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 196)

“… the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man’s image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see no connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood, but repentance, remorse persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets”. (IBID, Mrs. Ulfat Aziz-Us-Samad, p. 51)


“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”. (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity)


'My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document.' (Christianity Betrayed (2 Volume Set)Letter to Ken Schei,)

“The church`s God son who is supposed to have been born of the substance of God from the beginning of eternity is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures nor the God son who would be second person of the trinity descended from heaven and become flesh this is only human invention and superstition as such should be discarded.” (Francis David by W.C Gannett)

The Gospels are Unreliable!

The four Gospels are anonymous, and they were composed decades after the departure of Jesus. The early Church Fathers fail to mention them; they fail to address the miraculous events recorded in the Gospels. They never allude to the existence of the four Gospels. Non-Christian and Jewish historians never mention the Gospel events, or the resurrection of Jesus!

Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher, who lived during the mid-1st century, does not mention the ‘darkness’ or the ‘earthquake’ which allegedly occurred when Christ was crucified (Matthew 27:45, 28:2)

Lloyd Graham writes:

“… We have here a good example of the credulity of Western man. For two thousand years he has been reading about this convulsion and “darkness over all the earth” without ever questioning it or demanding proof of it. Yet had it happened, would not some of those able historians have recorded it? Why did they not?” (Deceptions & Myths of the Bible, Lloyd Graham p. 349)

“I wish all fundamentalists would take special note that while these quite public, literally stupendous events are alleged to have taken place, not a single other contemporary source can be found to corroborate or confirm them --- even though this was at a time and in a place where capable observers, recorders of remarkable happenings, historians, and others were in no way lacking. There is not a smidgeon of a trace of historicity to be found”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 149)

The non-Christians historians fail to mention the resurrection prove that it was a HOAX. Surely, if the resurrection of Jesus occurred, the writer Philo Judaeus (50 C.E.) and others would have recorded it.

The Gospels are unreliable because they were written very late; decades after the 12 apostles were martyred. Read the quotations below:

"The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."
(Joseph Wheless, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Acharya S)

The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them." (Bronson, C. Keeler, A Short History of the Bible)

"The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, Tim C. Leedom

“Not a single Gospel was written down at the time of Jesus, they were all written long after his earthly mission had come to an end” (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Quran, and Science p. 127),

“Each of the four canonical Gospels is religious proclamation in the form of a largely fictional narrative. Christians have never been reluctant to write fiction about Jesus, and we must remember that our four canonical Gospels are only the cream of a large and varied literature” (Rendal Helms, Gospel Fictions p.11)


The earliest documents of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul, allegedly written in 55-64 C.E. There is no evidence that Paul had written 1 and 2 Timothy.

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Paul and to Paul’s readers(Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion. We have five conflicting versions of the resurrection in the New Testament.

If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there’s not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

The earth-shattering statement:

There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material
(Mack Burton, Who Wrote the New Testament, The Making of the Christian Myth, p. 87)

Since the Gospel of Mark was written very late, the crucifixion story did not exist before its composition. Scholars’ conjecture that Mark was written after the Jewish War (66-70 C.E.) yet this assertion based on the tradition of Papias is wholly unreliable. The Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (died. 340 CE) said that Papias is untrustworthy, a man of limited knowledge.

The epistles of Paul do not record the crucifixion story, the Q gospel falls into the same category of silence, and the Didache. We have no choice to believe that the crucifixion story was invented by the oral traditions.

The scholar Rendal Helms describes the unreliability of ‘oral tradition’

This literature was oral before it was written and began with the memories of those who knew Jesus personally...

But oral tradition is by definition unstable, notoriously open to mythical, legendary, and fictional embellishment (Gospel Fictions Randal Helms, p. 12)

The oral tradition circulated amongst the early followers of Jesus, who knew him personally. Paul, the corrupter of the Gospel, had never met Jesus. He failed to derive any traditions from the apostles; instead Paul hibernated in Arabia for three years, fabricating his own “traditions” about Jesus. The alleged ‘darkness’ and ‘earthquake’, and Matthew’s ‘rising of the saints’ (Matthew 27:52) were probably Gospel embellishments. No historian refers to them.

The Gospel of Mark was the first to document the “passion” narrative:

“Mark was the first author to attach the passion narratives in written form to the story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth” (Rendal Helms, p. 57)

The writer of Mark was dictating false information relayed to him by oral tradition. He was the first writer to mention the “passion” story. Paul never appealed to the sayings of Jesus, so how can he possibly record any crucifixion? He did not.

Paul did not know anything about Jesus and his teachings. The stories recorded in the four Gospels are never related by him, or even alluded to. Paul did not know the fictional ‘empty tomb’ story. He recorded a spiritual resurrection whereas the Gospels say it was ‘physical’.

The ultra-conservatives keep insisting on a “physical” resurrection of Jesus. Paul, whose work pre-dates the first Gospel, insists on the exact opposite. His fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians could not possibly be clearer. I invite you to read to reread that passage for yourself. This passage is almost pure Platonism. Paul knows only a spiritual resurrection.
(Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 174)
Continue on with Part 4.
The ‘Atonement’ doctrine of paganism

Wednesday 21 February 2024

Does God need a "blood atonement"?

 "And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."
Mark 2:1-12


As seen in chapter one, when Paul came with his new and innovative ideas on how to improve upon the message of Jesus (pbuh), he began by dropping specific commandments. This continued until he decided that his alleged "visions" were sufficient authority to completely discard all of the commandments which both prophet Moses as well as prophet Jesus (pbut) both observed very strictly throughout their lives. The fact that both of these prophets are well known to have spent their lives commanding their followers to uphold these laws and commandments is casually brushed aside by "St. Paul." His "visions," we are told, are higher in authority than the commands of Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime.
Once Paul was finished nullifying the law of God through Moses and Jesus and simplifying the religion for them he began to get many converts. This is because his "Christianity" only required "faith" and no actual work (Romans 3:28). But faith without work was too flimsy a concept to build one's whole way of life around. Paul needed a stupendous and monumental event to have faith IN in order for his claims to be accepted by anyone. Thus the original sin and the atonement were born.
Paul claimed that God Almighty had created mankind inherently sinful and as inheritors of "the sin of Adam." He claimed that this hereditary burden was so great that the creator of all of the heavens and earth, and yes, the creator of the concepts of sin and forgiveness themselves, could not forgive this sin. This, in Paul's estimation, was beyond God's capabilities. Paul preached that the only way the creator of the heavens and the earth and everything in-between could forgive this sin was to have his sinless "only begotten son" beaten, spat on, stripped, whipped, cut, humiliated, and finally killed in the most gruesome and drawn-out way known to man at the time; by hanging on the cross, and thus becoming a curse upon mankind.
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree"
Galatians 3:13:
Only then would God be able to forgive this sin.
However, if we were to read the words of Jesus (pbuh) in Mark 2:9 we would find that Jesus (pbuh) informs us that for him to tell a man that his sins are forgiven is much easier than to cure a paralytic and cause him to walk, and since Jesus (pbuh) had the power to cure paralytics, therefore, he demonstrates to us that forgiving sins is much easier for him.
However, we already know that God Almighty the "Father" of all believers
"And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven"
Matthew 23:9
We further know that God Almighty is greater in power than all humans, inluding Jesus:
"..my Father is greater than I",
John 14:28
Finally, we know that Jesus (pbuh) gets his power from God:
"I can of mine own self do nothing...,"
John 5:30
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"
Acts 2:22
So it stands to reason that what is easy for Jesus (pbuh) is trivial and inconsequential for God Almighty Himself. Thus, if Jesus (pbuh) can forgive sins with the utmost ease simply by uttering the words "your sins are forgiven you," then it is well within the ability of God Almighty Himself to do the same simply by willing it, even without uttering a word. Indeed, we can even read in the Bible:
"Who [is] a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth [in] mercy."
Micah 7:18
"Nevertheless, He (God), [being] full of compassion, forgave [their] iniquity, and destroyed [them] not: yea, many a time turned He His anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. For He remembered that they [were but] flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again."
Psalm 78:38-39
"I, [even] I, [am] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins."
Isaiah 43:25
Well, how then does God Almighty forgive our sins? Is He able to simply say "you are forgiven" to those who turn to Him in repentance or must He first sacrifice a sinless individual before He can do this? To get the answer let us read the Bible:
"It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin."
Jeremiah 36:3
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
Isaiah 55:7
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah."
Psalm 32:5
"By mercy and truth iniquity is purged..."
Proverbs 16:6
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14
"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous [man] turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin."
Ezekiel 18:21-30
"To do righteousness and justice [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice."
Proverbs 21:3
"For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
Hosea 6:6
"Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
Micah 6:6-8
"To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them]. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
Isaiah 1:11-18

Answer From Islam  

This is indeed the teachings of Islam. In the Qur'an, we are told that mankind were created to inhabit the earth. When Adam and Eve were first created, they were allowed to abide in the garden. However, soon after they ate from the tree and God sent them down to earth. Once Adam realized his error he was remorseful and repentant, however, he was the first man. He did not know how to repent or how to seek forgiveness. So, God Almighty provided him with a revelation teaching him how to ask for God's forgiveness. Adam did so and God accepted Adam's repentance. God did not mandate gruesome and torturous blood sacrifices of the sinless or anything else. He simply forgave Adam's sin. We can read this story in the Qur'an:

"And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise, and eat from it freely with pleasure and delight wherever you will, but do not approach this tree or you both will be of the wrongdoers. But Satan made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), such that he expelled them from that in which they were. And we said: Decend, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment until a time. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He pardoned him. Verily! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. We said: Decend, all of you, from hence; but whenever there comes to you a guidance from Me, then whosoever follows My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. But they who disbelieve and deny our revelations, such are the dwellers of the Fire. They shall abide therein forever"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):35-39

"Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt (through excessive sin)! Despair not of the mercy of Allah. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):53

Anas ibn Malik narrated in Mishkat Al-Masabih the following:
"Allah's Messenger (pbuh) stated that Allah said, "O Son of Adam, as long as you supplicate to Me and have hope in me I will pardon you in spite of what you have done, and I do not care. O Son of Adam, if your sins were so numerous as to reach the lofty regions of the sky, then you asked My forgiveness, I would forgive you, and I do not care. O Son of Adam, if you were to meet Me with enough sins to fill the earth, then met Me, not associating anything with Me (in worship), I shall greet you with its equivalent in forgiveness.'"
Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi. And Ahmad and Al-Darimi transmitted it from AbuTharr.


Tuesday 20 February 2024

The Doctrine of Original Sin and Atonement

 


In Christian theology, every human is born sinful. The origin of this concept has been attributed to Adam who disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. Consequently, Adam’s sin is transmitted by heredity to the entire human race. The Old Testament says nothing about the transmission of hereditary sin to everyone. Also, the term original sin is not found in the Bible. Paul suggested that humans are sinners. He said in Acts 13:39 that we can have forgiveness from our sins through Jesus, that the Law of Moses could not free us from our sins, and every person who believes in Jesus is free from all his sins. In Acts 13:23, Paul proclaimed Jesus, not God, as the savior. And again keep silent about what Matthew said in 7:21. With these teachings of Paul, Christians can commit all sorts of sins, from adultery, homosexuality, using drugs, to killing. In one moment the Christian is a born again by accepting Jesus as a savior, and then and only then can all his sins be forgiven.



This was in contradiction with the teachings of John the Baptist, who was carrying the message of repentance to God, as this is the only way to human salvation. In a difficult and vague passage, Paul hinted about the original sin. When Adam sinned; "sin entered the entire human race. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." Roman (5:12). In the Gospel of Luke 11:13, Jesus was teaching about prayer, he says, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children." Tertullian coined the phrase original sin based upon the above verses of Paul and Luke. Then St. Augustine (354 - 430) took this idea from Tertullian and developed it further.


The church accepted this doctrine of Atonement and original sin four centuries after Jesus. It contradicts the Bible itself as in Deuteronomy 24:16: "The father shall not put to death for the children, neither the children be put to death for their father: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." In Jeremiah 31:30: "... But every one shall die for his own iniquity..." In Ezekiel 18:20: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." In Matthew 7:1-2: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." In I Cor. 3:8: "...and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor." To prove that children are born without sin, Jesus asked not to let children suffer, (Matthew 19:14): "But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

In the Middle Age, Aquinas, whose teachings became the essence of the official doctrine of the Roman Church, stated that the sin was in Adam. He insisted that the loss of the original righteousness was an ultimate grace from God and not a part of man’s created nature. This concept seems so vague. Most justice systems of the free world assume that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. But this doctrine assumes that humans are guilty. Does this mean, God forbid, that human systems have more justice than the Creator of Justice Himself?
In Hebrews 1:3, it sates that the death of Son of God, who is made of the same substance as that of God, had purged our sins. But that death was a death of a real man. How, then, did the substance of God die? Christian scholars take great pain in explaining this intellectual puzzle, which only adds to the confusion of anyone. Religion is supposed to be simple, not only understood by the scholars but also by the average person or even the unlettered. How can anyone have faith in this doctrine that contradicts the Bible and is illogical? Faith should be accompanied by common sense. So, was Jesus crucified to save us from our original sin, and while being crucified asked God why did He abandon him?
This looks like a present day marketing ploy of shocking someone and then saving him by selling him a "cure-all." The Church tells you that you are condemned to hell, not because of what you did. Then the only way to save yourself is to accept a story about Jesus’ death on the cross. It is agreed upon that no one saw the process of resurrection. They found the sepulcher where Jesus was laid down empty, and came to the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the supposed crucifixion. The Gospels alleged that Jesus should suffer, and that he was going to Jerusalem to die, and on the third day he would come back. But the Gospels did not say plainly that Jesus’ suffering had been to save us from the sin of Adam!
Oh God!


Here is another idea for the Hollywood sequel movies "Oh God":
The movie starts with an old man, a father of very many sons and daughters. All of his sons and daughters are committing all kinds of sins from paganism to adultery. All are sinners, except one son who is truly righteous among all his brothers and sisters. The father is very troubled with the behavior of the sinners. He thinks about a way to convince the sinners to follow his righteous son. Finally, he comes up with a brilliant idea. Some of his evil sons should kill their righteous brother to save all sinners!
What would you say about this father?
Islam has taken a unique position on this whole issue, a position that is not shared by any other religion. The Quran states that Adam and Eve were directed by God to reside in the Garden of Eden and enjoy its produce as they pleased, assured of bountiful supplies and comfort. But they were warned not to approach a particular tree so that they would not run into harm and injustice to themselves. This was a lesson from God to teach humanity limits and boundaries. Then Satan intrigued them to temptation and caused them to loose their joyful state.

They were expelled from the Garden and brought down to earth to live, die, and rise up on the Day of Judgment. Having realized what they have done, they felt shame, guilt, and remorse. They prayed for God’s mercy, and were forgiven by the Most Merciful. They committed a sin, repented and were forgiven. This is the whole idea. People commit sins, and they repent to God, and He will forgive them.

On the other hand, Satan did not repent out of arrogance. The original sin was committed by Satan, who was arrogant and refused to obey God, and refused to repent. It is that simple.

Monday 19 February 2024

No Original Sin

 By: Sami Zaatari


As we all know several Christians believe in the doctrine of original sin, that all humans are born with sin, and that we are basically stained from birth. Much like many other Christian beliefs, the doctrine of original sin has no real basis within the Bible, and is merely an invention by the Church and Christians, much like the Trinity, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself never taught such a thing as original sin, rather Jesus explicitly taught the opposite of original sin! When we go read the Gospel of Matthew 18 verses 1-4 we read this interesting incident:
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
So notice what happens here, the disciples ask Jesus who will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and Jesus uses a child as an example, now ask yourself this, why would Jesus use a stained sinner as an example of the greatest in heaven! Christians believe that no one with sin can enter heaven, as sin cannot be around God, so how could Jesus use an example of a SINNER?!
Obviously Jesus did not believe children are born with sin, and it makes perfect sense as to why he would use a child as an example, because as we all know children are innocent people, and indeed the greatest one in heaven will have to be like a child, innocent, humble, and pure. Original sin says the opposite, original sin does not even spare the young children as it teaches that ALL humans are BORN with sins, naturally this includes babies and children!
So if Jesus believed in original sin, that all humans are born with sin, then how could use a sinner as an example of the greatest person in heaven, can you compare a sinner with the greatest in heaven, does that make any sense?
And Allah Knows Best!

--------------------------------------------


Biblical Contradiction of the Original Sin

The following are some extracts from the Bible itself, which contradict this theory of original sin:-
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the inequity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". (Ezekiel, 18.20). This extract proves that one who sins suffers for it and dies, not his father or son, and the son does not bear the responsibility of the father and vice-versa. The weight of the sin will be on nobody but the sinner himself. Jesus’ own words recorded in the Bible indicate towards the falsity of this theory and its innovation. Jesus said,
"Every good tree brings forth good food" (Matt 7:17).
When Jesus was blamed by the Pharisees for eating with the sinners he replied to them saying,
"For I am not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Matt 9:13)
As apparent, Jesus divided people into two categories: the sinners and the righteous, a classification which proves the existence of people free of the so called original sin.
For more emphasis on the falsehood of the original sin theory and how the Bible contradicts this church artwork, read this following statement of Jesus,
"By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matt 12:37). Jesus here establishes clearly that everyone will be held accountable for their own words, which reflects on personal responsibility and individuality and negates the original sin assumption. We conclude with the fact that Jesus did not preach or teach this belief, it is one of the many church fabricated doctrines. What Jesus preached is clear from the above as well as the following:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again," said Jesus.(Matt 7:1-2). "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven," said Jesus. (Matt 19:14).


Sunday 18 February 2024

Why should we bear Adam and Eve’s sin?

A lot of people completely miss the story of Adam and Eve. The popular understanding is that we are here in this tough life as a result of the original sin. The Quran clearly says different. We are here because it is the job we volunteered for!
God says in the holy Quran, “We offered the trust to the heavens, the earth and the mountains and they refused to carry it. Man carried it.” (23:72)
After that, God told the angels, “I am setting in the earth a deputy.” (2:30) So, we were tasked to be on earth whether Adam and Eve sinned or not. And being tasked to earth is the “trust” we agreed to undertake. The only reason Adam and Eve were put in the Garden first is to give them a “dress rehearsal” for life of earth! By the end of their experiment with Satan and the forbidden tree, they learned four things: that the Garden of God is a wonderful place, that Satan wishes them failure and will lie and deceive them, that disobedience to God carries heavy consequences and that God accepts apologies! All crucial lessons to learn when they move to their job location.
The original sin was forgiven. We do not inherit our parents sins, or anybody else’s sin for that matter. We are responsible only for our own sins.
Why should we bear Adam and Eve’s sin? Understand Islam

Saturday 17 February 2024

Victims of the Christian Atonement Theory

Serbs claim they are going directly to Heaven, this is based on the teachings of Paul who wrote Jesus' blood cleansed all past, present, and future sins [even as they kill and rape innocent people on Easter]. We witnessed over the centuries the negative effects of this theory of atonement as we witness it's ungodly effects today.
With these Christians under the assumption that they are saved on faith alone regardless of their horrid actions, in the case of the Serbs [rape, genocide, looting], you have atrocities repeating themselves through out history, with it's root in the Christian atonement theory.
Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

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, women 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 heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde". 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]
after 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 lances through 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, children). [WW37-40]
(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 Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude") The 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, 8/12/1099. 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. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours 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]

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 "idolators" 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 requerimiento - 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: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome 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 Saviour 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 Tenochtitlán [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 AmeriKKKa.
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 Warres are farre less bloody...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares 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 attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne 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 apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [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 different: "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 persecution 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 mothers 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 girle and a boy if you thinke 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 uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [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 Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [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 Pocumtuck 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 1900, 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 the 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 minister 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]
By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' 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: Surprisingly 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 Paveliç, a practising 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 Serbians (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 victorious 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 protesters 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 Würzburg - 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 Würzburg 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 Tutsi ethnic groups.
 For quite some time I heard only rumours 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 Tutsis 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 slaughter of Tutsis 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 Tutsis 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] 

References:

 [DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krähte 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.Wollschläger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zürich 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.

Conclusion
We have today the Christian Serbs, yesterday we had the Christian Nazis, before that the Christian colonists, the Chrsitian crusaders, on and on, all believed their cold blooded murders will not effect their entrance directly into heaven.
I believe these Christians never read the Bible, I believe they only followed false teachings of their church without ever reading what Christ who was sent by God stated regarding Salvation, which in summary states; "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
Here we see these Christians are disgusted with Jesus; "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)
These Christians do not turn the other cheek to their enemies [innocent young girls] , instead the these Christians [today the Serbs] grab these girls by the cheeks and _rape_ them, and steal their innocence.
Jesus offered a kind method of atonement by stating; "forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37) and "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." (Mark 11:25-26)
Rather than the Christians obeying the advise of Jesus, for every one Christian, ten innocent children are killed by the by these church followers.
These Christians obviously do the opposite of what the Messiah taught; "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:43-45)
These Christians give the true meaning of [anti-Christ] fore they do the reverse of what Jesus teaches .
These Christian , are dragging Christianity to a new low in the History of Christian Atrocities.
These Christians Hate Jesus more than any group of people world wide because they openly, publicly and proudly spit on the commandments of Jesus; "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal" (Matthew 19:18)
In conclusion, Christ whispered gently; "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

Unfortunately, due to Paul, who wrote 75% of the current Gospel, not Jesus, the current Gospel can and is debated by over a billion to mean you can be saved by faith alone, despite the rape and murder you commit, historically showing the flaw of the Christian [Paulian] atonement theory.
USIslam