Luke 19:27

Luke 19:27 Don’t Ask What God Can Do For You, Ask Who You Can Kill In His Name? [An essay from http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/ containing a number of affirmations and questions about the most common religions].

*** Recently Abrahamism demonstrated its mighty hold on the minds of those who want to commit horror. A 23 year old French Muslim killed three French paratroopers, one of them from Martinique (what American racists would call “black“), and the other two Muslim, as it turned out (one of them a Franco-Moroccan).

One of the unarmed Muslim paratrooper treachorously assassinated was called Mohammed, just like the killer. Then Mohammed Mehra killed three children, and a dad protecting his two sons, at a Jewish school. He benefitted from the help of other Muslim fanatics. Dozens got arrested. All indications are that Mohammed Mehra was just a little creep. He was arrested many times for various exactions unrelated to religion. There is a video of him, laughing to no end, beaming with an angel face, after making a rodeo with a BMW.

More children were wounded, but they survived the horrible wounds. It is useful to peer into the horror. Not by voyeurism, but to see how deep hatred can go.

One of the children, a seven year old girl, was hit in the shoulder by a .45 colt of the U.S. Army (!). The Muslim fanatic, filming the assassination with a camera strapped on his belly, chased her, grabbed her by her pony tail. Then he brought the gun to her head, and fired. But the gun jammed. Instead of listening to Allah’s hint, still holding onto her, he got another gun he had, released the safety, and killed her.

This sort of violence, I claim, is intrinsic to Abrahamism (“Judeo-Christo-Islamism”). It’s what it was made for, and by. It’s no coincidence that Islam created the greatest empire ever seen, in a few years: by the sword, for the sword.

The lunatics are getting agitated. In the extract below, published in the electronic version of a newspaper read by millions, a fanatic ponders about my case:

Mr. belal zakaria asks me in the Wall Street Journal, whether Satan is hiding behind me. Here is Mr. Zakaria’s quote, complete with savage grammar, Saturday, March 31, 2012:

» @patrice ayme » Who is hiding behind you like satan (also a light in wavelength and angstrom) misleading using wordpress.com and Abraham with illicit comment of Mental illness of Abraham? The following abraham proof of prostration given 1400 yrs like moon splitting Surah Moon … » In all muslim prayers, Muslim seek refuge from misleader 5/times per day world wide for reason Obvious.” Is organized superstition a mental illness “for reason obvious”?

Abraham is the mythical founder of Judaism. He is famous for agreeing with a voice in his head telling him to kill his son. Hence Abraham is the founder of Christianism five centuries later, and Islamism, another six centuries after that.

Muhammad got advice about founding Islam from several Christian family members, including his cousin, a professional Christian monk, who told him he had obviously encountered the Archangel Gabriel in the desert. That’s how the whole Islam (“Submission“) thing got to roll…

Submission to whom? That is the question. Well, to the boss. Abraham was the ultimate sucker: to please his boss, he was ready to kill his son. The Abrahamists adulate him for that. Bosses, naturally, founded a religion around the idea.

Once a French catholic girl told me:”Christianism is the religion of love.” For her it was a fact, not a theory. She overlooked three things:

1) love has long existed, since there are brainy animals, and they breed. Thus, those who need Christianism to love may be mentally diseased.

2) Millions were killed in the name of Christianism. And not just by Christians roasting Muslim children for sustenance in the Middle East, or wadding, knee deep in blood in Jerusalem (both facts related by the best Christian eyewitnesses). No, millions were killed by Christians, in Europe, killing Christians who, they believe, did not believe correctly. By the way, I am (formally) a Christian, so, if I get killed by an Abrahamist, it will be more of the same: I did not believe correctly, according to my own co-religionists.

The civil war in Syria is, first of all, a religious war between fanatics. Between Abrahamists. So far, 10,000 killed and counting. Assad’s dictatorship rests mostly on the (legitimate) fear for their lives some sectarians such as Christians and Alawites have of the (majority) Sunnis. When the Arabs invaded the area, it was entirely Christian. Then there were massacres, and oppression. Some of these massacres were between some particular Muslims (“Sunni”), and the partisans (“Shia”) of Ali (hence Alawites). This is what happened in the last 13 centuries.

3) In the Bible’s Old Testament, there are many calls to murder. And so it is, more discreetly in the New Testament. Here is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, indeed, a prophet of Islam, ordering to kill non believers. Luke 19:27: “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”

How loving is that?

When people say that Jesus is love, they, either, did not read the Bible, in which case they talk for sure about what they certainly don’t know, so they are liars. Or, then they think slaughtering those who do not believe the way they like is cool.

In the later case, Abrahamism, as most other mass superstitions, would be a mental disease induced to better exploit the naive in a systemic fashion by making them goose step behind the notion that their superiors even know how the universe works.

Organized superstition is organized stupidity. The way Abrahamism originally had it, it’s organized stupidity with evil intent.

Stupidity is a force against which the gods themselves contend in vain. It is also, in the case of Abrahamism, organized calls to murder. In the case of the Bible and the Qur’an, there are many clear appeals to murder (you can go the site below to read the quotes in the Qur’an:

http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... oly-quran/

I never got around listing the same for Christianity, from lack of time.

Some have followed these calls to murder, for centuries, killing millions. There are also appeals to peace, true. But that’s irrelevant, once you are dead. The truth is, Christianism was imposed by emperor Constantine, viewed by a saint by the catholic Orthodox, and who viewed himself as the “13th apostle”. Among others, he killed his nephew, ordered his son executed (without bothering to give a reason), and boiled his wife (no reason either).

If Nero had founded a religion, the same ones would be probably worshipping that. (Nero assassinated his mother, but she was a well known plotter, had basically reigned as an Augusta, and poisoned her husband Claudius. So she was not that innocent. Constantine, by killing the righteous for no good reason, was more Satanic, on the face of it, thus better qualified to found the world upside down, as the Cathars noticed.)

Now, predictably, some of the fanatics roll out people who made a scientific career who were themselves fanatics. Salam, a physics Nobel, was an example (some said he did not deserve his Nobel, BTW). He called the Qur’an “the most beautiful book that ever was“. I guess, complete with the call for the destruction of the unbelievers.

One who is often rolled out: — John Polkinghorne, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge.

That Christian fanatic famously wrote that:

“only in the media, and in the popular and polemical scientific writing, does there persist the myth of the light of pure scientific truth confronting the darkness of obscurantist religious error. No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science. People who tell you that ‘Science tells you everything you need to know about the world’ or ‘Science tells you that religion is all wrong’ or ‘Science tells you there is no God’, those people aren’t telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.”

Against stupidity and criminality, the gods themselves contend in vain.

Science is about what is true. Science cannot yet prove when people are lying. Science says nothing, globally, about superstition. At least, so far. We have no proof, yet, that those who really believe that god tell them to kill somebody are mad. The secular law does not treat them as criminals, early enough.

The only adverse relationship between superstition and science is that the same form of critical intelligence that built science, if applied to superstition, shows that it is wrong.

For example: twins have different fates. Exit astrology.

For example: that hearsay from some analphabetic epileptic in the desert, 14 centuries ago, with a chip on his shoulder from his analphabetism, and living from his wife’s business, is enough for a proof of a theory of the universe stretches the imagination of all, but the most stupid.

For example: people go on their knees, and evoke Jesus. But there is no record of his life (at a time when there were plenty of records, and at a time when there were the record of the execution of several Jesus like characters, in the same region).

Enormous histories like that of the Jewish general Josephus, written 7 years after Saint Paul’s writings, evoke plenty of pseudo-prophets, but not Jesus. On the usual strict criterions of objective history, Jesus never existed.

And in the first Christian writings, Saint Paul writes, black on white, that he “never met Jesus in person, except inside his own head”…It’s a hint if there ever was one..

Whereas mass superstition is organized stupidity, science is organized intelligence.

But, to practice science, one does not need to be particularly intelligent. And to be famous in science, one can just be lucky, or, like Einstein, present a lot of other people’s work as one’s own. So professor Polkinghorne can say whatever he wants. There were very bright people goose stepping murderously behind Hitler. Including several Nobel Prize Laureates (Lenard), and super smart young mathematicians (Teichmuller an example). Locally intelligent, globally stupid. Certainly abject and criminal.

And what was Nazism? Why was Nazism so keen to kill Jews, and how come it succeeded so well? Well, just look at the history of Christianism, and at the belts of the SS: “Goot Mit Uns!” God With US! was written there. The first century of imperial Christianism was little more than a massacre of everything, and everybody non Christian.

Nine years after the last SS was killed in combat for his fanatical cause, the U.S. Congress adopted the motto of the SS. Amen.

***

Patrice Ayme http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

Tyranosopher, you have described exactly what I have learned to call 'tribalism'. To study religions as institutions is to be aware of their function as tribal cohesives. This is their main purpose. The thing about the civilising influence of the Abrahamic religions is that they also, at a certain period in history, metamorphosed into universalisms. This is summed up quite neatly don't you think by Jesus of Nazareth saying 'Who is my neighbour?'

The warring of religious sects , and the madness of irrational individuals who have been badly taught, or who are plain mad(and there are people who have incurable brain deficiencies), is not sufficient reason to discount the beneficial teachings that modern religions can still promote. It is necessary for all of us to be able to tell the difference btween good teaxchings and bad teachings.

It is so obvious to clinicians that some individuals who kill are simply mad, that one wonders why bad ideas are nearly always blamed for murders.

Hitler was a aspiring artist who showed some of his wares to those in the industry. They happened to be Jewish and rejected Hitlers art. Hitlers father was Jewish and was mean to him, and left the family. His mother was catholic. The swastika was copied from a cross on the religious school he attended. Hitler had a personal vendetta which escalated into revenge and destruction of all who opposed him and others just because they existed. Germany was in great turmoil and provided Hitler with an opportunity to seize the country with lies, of course which unfortunately the people believed and made him their leader. The horror of Hitler and his followers is history. Our world has many such people. They come from all walks of life and beliefs. Hitlers 'god' and motto was a god of hate and destruction, not the God of love. Believers, non-believers and the indifferent, ALL need to understand that murder is unacceptable. We need to stop the blame game and work toward 'Live and Let Live'.

Belinda & Misty: Sorry I did not know anyone replied anything... Belinda: Maybe you should read the recent 2012 book: Soldaten. You would find madness through banality. Misty: Soldaten shows it was not about murder being acceptable, or not, but about indifference, and stupidity.

This is a classic example of reading the New Testament from a secular perspective:

Luke 19:

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

The New Testament is an expression of the psychology of "Being" dealing with what we ARE rather than secular psychology which is concerned with behavior or what we DO.

From the point of view of what we ARE, if we don't consciously expand what exists in our being it will be lost. This isn't politically correct but is reality.

Fact is, on face value, Christ ask to kill unbelievers, something even Hitler did not do. Secular is not the point, survival is.

Systematically in the new testament, the game is played: the Christ followers are perfect, and are ordered to be 100% innocuous, so Christ has to burn people on their behalf. Here is another such passage in Luke:

"3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."

So Christ will burn people. Secular authorities then may as well give him a hand, through the Middle Ages, burning millions. The Muslims duplicated the practice. Calvin was famous to order people to be burned alive, and watched that from as close as possible; he got the authority to do this, from his interpretation of passages such as above.

Hypocrisy is mighty, thus, in the Bible, institutional.

Fact is, on face value, Christ ask to kill unbelievers, something even Hitler did not do. Secular is not the point, survival is.

Systematically in the new testament, the game is played: the Christ followers are perfect, and are ordered to be 100% innocuous, so Christ has to burn people on their behalf. Here is another such passage in Luke:

"3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."

So Christ will burn people. Secular authorities then may as well give him a hand, through the Middle Ages, burning millions. The Muslims duplicated the practice. Calvin was famous to order people to be burned alive, and watched that from as close as possible; he got the authority to do this, from his interpretation of passages such as above.

Hypocrisy is mighty, thus, in the Bible, institutional.

Again you are reading this passage from a secular perspective or what happens in daily life.

Consider it from the perspective of your "being." What does it mean that "he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable?"

What is the "wheat" (the real) in you and how is it distinguished from the chaff (all the habitual results of our acquired negativity) the unreal that continues to emotionally burn.

Normally, without help from above, we do not distinguish the real from the unreal so the real cannot psychologically evolve into a conscious human perspective. The real is suppressed by the unreal. As a result we remain in illusion referred to by Plato as the Beast resulting in "dust to dust."

Luke 19:27 is a good point to support the OP I raised, i.e.
Why Religions Must be Weaned Off from Humanity

The implication is this;

Abrahamic religions (contain good and evil verses in their holy book)
Abrahamic believers* (comprised good and evil humans)

*There are appx. 4 billion Abrahamics on Earth.
To assert that 1% out of the 4 billion has strong evil tendencies is very real, and they feed on these immutable verses that are laced with violence.
Even good people will turned violence when influenced and seemingly coerced by these violent verses.
1% of this is 40 million.
It only took 18+ jihadists to kill 3000+ innocent people in 911.
The influence of holy verses laced with violent elements on believers to commit violence is so evident to the extent that asking for proof would be absurd.

I understand religion is a critical necessity for the majority in their present state to deal with some negative psychological issues. However, for the future, humanity must find ways to replace religions (with a lot of negative baggage) as a mean to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance of mortality (CogDoom).

-- Updated Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:09 pm to add the following --

Again you are reading this passage from a secular perspective or what happens in daily life.
Consider it from the perspective of your "being." What does it mean that "he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable?"
What is the "wheat" (the real) in you and how is it distinguished from the chaff (all the habitual results of our acquired negativity) the unreal that continues to emotionally burn.
Normally, without help from above, we do not distinguish the real from the unreal so the real cannot psychologically evolve into a conscious human perspective. The real is suppressed by the unreal. As a result we remain in illusion referred to by Plato as the Beast resulting in "dust to dust."

It is unfortunately you are not able to separate the wheat from the chaff, in the perspective religion (violent verses) as a proximate root cause for religious-based violence. In a sense you are supporting and condemning violence on the future generations (within next 100-200) years for some personal selfish ends (CogDoom) at present.

Luke 19:27 is a good point to support the OP I raised, i.e.
Why Religions Must be Weaned Off from Humanity

The implication is this;

Abrahamic religions (contain good and evil verses in their holy book)
Abrahamic believers* (comprised good and evil humans)

*There are appx. 4 billion Abrahamics on Earth.
To assert that 1% out of the 4 billion has strong evil tendencies is very real, and they feed on these immutable verses that are laced with violence.
Even good people will turned violence when influenced and seemingly coerced by these violent verses.
1% of this is 40 million.
It only took 18+ jihadists to kill 3000+ innocent people in 911.
The influence of holy verses laced with violent elements on believers to commit violence is so evident to the extent that asking for proof would be absurd.

I understand religion is a critical necessity for the majority in their present state to deal with some negative psychological issues. However, for the future, humanity must find ways to replace religions (with a lot of negative baggage) as a mean to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance of mortality (CogDoom).

-- Updated Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:09 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

It is unfortunately you are not able to separate the wheat from the chaff, in the perspective religion (violent verses) as a proximate root cause for religious-based violence. In a sense you are supporting and condemning violence on the future generations (within next 100-200) years for some personal selfish ends (CogDoom) at present.

Various sects of Christendom, or man made Christianity is of the world. Christianity while in the World is not of it. You are referring to Christendom and I'm referring to Christianity.

John 15:

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

The world welcomes secularized religion but must hate the essence of religion since it threatens the illusion of its superiority.

Luke 19:27 Don’t Ask What God Can Do For You, Ask Who You Can Kill In His Name? [An essay from http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/ containing a number of affirmations and questions about the most common religions].

It's pretty clear you didn't read the parable in Luke before you came under the influence of the holy texts that seed your thoughts.

Listen to what the wicked servant says of his master:
"And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow."
-- Luke 19:20

Was the accusation true? Did the nobleman reap where he had not sown? The evidence of the story reveals otherwise. The money that was given to the servants (sown) was the nobleman's. When he returned to see what profit his investment had made (to reap what he had sown), he rewarded the servants who had worked for his profit and took everything away from the one who hadn't.

What caused the wicked servant to falsely accuse his master? The text tells us he was motivated by fear. Fear of what? Fear that the fruit of his labour would be withheld from him. Why should he work for another man's profit? His fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The target audience was Jewish, so the lesson applied to them at the time, but took on a wider application after Jesus ascended (went away to a far country - heaven). What had the Jews (have Christians) done with God's investment in them? Here's what God was expecting:
"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."
-- Deuteronomy 4:5,6

God didn't get the return on His investment, the esteem of the OT nations for what His law could achieve, because His wicked servants wouldn't put His law to work for that end. They believed the fruit of their labour (their own esteem) belonged to them.

Now, as to the last judgment. Who were the agents of slaughter? To understand who they are, consider a house that is occupied and well maintained (Israel actively maintaining God's law). It attracts little negative attention, and any negative attention it might receive, is quickly repaired. However, as soon as the house falls into neglect (Israel failing to maintain God's law), the house immediately comes to the attention of the agents of destruction. They descend upon it, break it apart, and carry off whatever they consider valuable. If you look at the history of OT Israel you will see that these agents of destruction have been Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. Nations moved by the dictates of their own hearts, not God's.

Are you being a wicked servant, falsely accusing your master?

Cheers,
enegue

This is a parable and not a dogmatic statement of Jesus. Verse 27 is spoken by the nobleman of the parable, not by Jesus. It sounds, on first reading, like a moral summation by the teller of the parable but when linked with the citizens's declaration in verse 14 that "We will not have this man to reign over us" you can see that verse 26-27 are still "inside" the parable. Remember that parables, by definition, are not literal. All non-believers will ultimately be "slain" at the final judgment. (I am an atheist by the way.)

Tyrano,

I learned in what basically amounted to an art appreciation course, in community college, that the art of propaganda requires over simplifying complex issues, focusing on the perceived faults of your enemy, and constantly repeating the message over and over and over and over.

The author of your essay never visited the City of Milwaukee or any of the major post Christian cities of the United States. Neither has that author ever visited the city-states of Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

I visited those city-states in the UAE while a U.S. Marine in Desert Storm stationed aboard a naval battle ship. As I wrote home then, I stated I felt safer in the theater of war, in the Muslim UAE than I did in my own neighborhood I was raised in.

Hands down the Muslims of the UAE - not only far more materially prosperous than anything most Americans could ever imagine becoming - are a far more civilized and peaceful people than the average citizenship of the secular country of the United States of America.

The number of child abductions, homicides - nay those simply shot but survive, the number of serial rapists, serial killers, the sheer number of mentally ill and psychopaths in the United States is surreal.

Recently I inquired online about moving abroad to the small Muslim nation-state of Qatar. I would gladly give up democracy and even be surrounded by mainly Muslims to taste a small bit of that sheer heaven.

Why violence occurs - within any population (race, government for, city, religious identity, sex) - is probably more complex. In Milwaukee throughout most the United States post-Christian Black-America is by far the most violent and murderous of any category of people in the country. I'm a member of that population - as well a member of the category one would call "Catholic" - among the two the greatest percentage of education, civility, and peace occurs within the latter. This is not to disparage Black-Americans but to point out a rather obvious observation just at the local level of Milwaukee.

But to surmise being "black" or identifying as a member of the ethnic group Black-American is the cause of violence in the city, country, world, or just within Black-America itself seems to overstep correct, objective, methods of reaching a conclusion.

I'll submit that Islam because of some of its core doctrines of "Lesser Jihad" (violent kind) and "Greater Jihad" (non-violent type of inward self battle of vice) will always have a problem with some of its members responding violently towards those deemed the "others."

In Christianity I see it as the opposite problem. The "turn the other cheek" phrase is so often pushed that its seems to have become a de facto doctrine of its own and is usually promoted in parishes past a common sense level.

The Jewish people are largely non-violent people. Aside from their forming the state of Israel which certainly does use violence - and arguably unjustly oppresses Palestinians sometimes. But overall the Jews don't go around killing people over religion. That is just ridiculous.

The vast majority of Muslims never bother anyone either. The greatest terrorists in the U.S. - or in France I'm sure - are its violent domestic, secular, gangs.

-- Updated December 7th, 2012, 4:04 pm to add the following --

Fact is, on face value, Christ ask to kill unbelievers, something even Hitler did not do. Secular is not the point, survival is.

Systematically in the new testament, the game is played: the Christ followers are perfect, and are ordered to be 100% innocuous, so Christ has to burn people on their behalf. Here is another such passage in Luke:

This is so funny I don't know if it should be taken seriously. My Christian education and indoctrination always taught me that the Apostles of Christ and his followers were flawed. Peter the first Pope usually being showed as one of the prime examples let alone Judas the one that betrayed and then committed the sin of suicide.

Actually, the Catholic view is that the Church was established not for saints but for sinners. Logically, and given few Catholics ever become recognized as saints within the Church, that means within the Church the teaching is that Christians are not perfect. Sainthood does not even mean one is perfect. Far from it.

If you are going to critique Christian theology and teachings then perhaps first it would do well to learn what it is they teach and believe.

"3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."

So Christ will burn people. Secular authorities then may as well give him a hand, through the Middle Ages, burning millions. The Muslims duplicated the practice. Calvin was famous to order people to be burned alive, and watched that from as close as possible; he got the authority to do this, from his interpretation of passages such as above.

Hypocrisy is mighty, thus, in the Bible, institutional.

Christ recognized religious authorities to act as Inquisitors. He acknowledged this proper authority even when being tried himself and accused of various things. Christ also recognized the legitimate authority of state government.

To this day Catholicism - while opposing capital punishment in advanced, developed nations - recognizes the state's authority to impose the death penalty. It also recognizes the states authority to enact war. So?

Burning by stake is actually recorded in the Old Testament. And mind you... I regard such things are barbaric. But mankind religious or non-religious executed capital punishment in some of the most barbaric fashions throughout most human history. To this vary day you have executions and murders by burning (tires tossed over a victim and then the victim lit on fire). This is a popular method of execution in the slums of Rio de Janeiro performed by its major gangs for civilians violating its codes like not snitching to police. It may be worth noting many of the liberals of Brazil like to regard these slum gangs killing innocent slum favelados like this as "socially conscious" people because they may opppose religion and government.

And Jews, Christians, and Muslims held no monopoly on this thing. Alright, atheist Soviet troops have executed Eastern Orthodox monks, at their own monasteries, during WWII by hanged them from hooks by their jaws from trees. Chaining others to walls in a room and leaving them.

Don't get me started on the nature worshiping North American Indians. While some nations of North American Indians were peaceful others were very warlike and fought with a barbarity that shocked even Christian whites colonizing their lands. And that just the fighting they did among other Indian nations. These Indian nations though nothing of raping women and girls during a successful raid, torturing men and women for long periods, and even roasting small infants in front of their whaling mothers.

This all ignoring the apocalyptic type war the secular United States waged against plant life and humans in Vietnam. There atheist communist foes were often even more barbaric.

Basically, I reject your conclusion because I find your premises false. I might find them more persuasive if the secular U.S. Government rarely initiates war (it is one of the most war mongering nations in recorded human history - with about a war per generation waged) or had I gone to war for Catholicism and Pope rather than for the United States and President.