Christian Terrorism - Conveniently Forgotten

its all about controlling the working class or serfdom. christianity is becoming passe, so now they'll use islam to control the emerging global middle class. control.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


You know what!. I will apologise for any offense I have caused you! Huge back down for me I know & don't ask why it came so easily. it's usually like pulling teeth with me! I just say sorry!

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

You know what!. I will apologise for any offense I have caused you! Huge back down for me I know & don't ask why it came so easily. it's usually like pulling teeth with me! I just say sorry!

Well - thankyou! - have a nice Christmas.

Re Dominicus

I think a direct comparison between eastern and western semi-religion/religion is impossible.

The eastern systems usually have no creator-god; no monoteistic god; hierarchy below practise; individualistic; and the aim is a personal transmutation.

Abramic religions have a 'boss' at the top, who has total power; hierarchy, doctrine and ritual above practise; run on collective basis and the aim is a passive recieving of external divine benefits (grace etc).

So it's no wonder, that adherents of Abramic religions tend to be very violent compared to eastern systems. It's build into their whole structure. If an eastern monk wants to make an extra-ordinary manifestation, he burns himself. If an abramic monk, priest or fanatic want the same, he puts a match to somebody else.

That was the structure.

In all respect; aren't you taking some points a bit far from a wish of demonstrating your opinion correct (as an exception from my often grumpy attitudes, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you). The consequences of your opinion would be, that there is no such thing as social manipulation/engineering. That people 'choose', independent of indoctrination, brainwashing etc.

To bring it a notch down, to where there is wellresearched material. In the app.100 year old dispute between psychologists who either take genetics as THE decessive factor for behaviour, alternatively those who support the social model, a wealth of experiments have been made. Personally I'm (as an old psychology-student) not taken sides in this debate, but find that both sides can demonstrate conclusive evidence for their opinions. Meaning that some humans can be directed by social influence or pressure, while others are more resistant to such external influences, given options of choice.

So when doctrines contains open commands of violence and the system is saturated by power-hierarchy thinking, you'll have to deny the whole branch of psychological studies on this, by denying the effect on those exposed to it. This is valid for indoctrination-systems as Hirler-jugend, Mao's red cadres, the cult around Stalin and ofcourse children from extremist-christian and -moslem families.

I ofcourse agree with you (I take it?), that an ideal would be to let people make their own decissions, and as you seem to be both knowledgable and reasonable, I have some problems understanding your polarized attitude on this special point. I have to ask: Are you defending an Abramic position? Under pretension of a 'neutral' position.

Or the more honorable attitude of not picking at anybody at all.

reply to post by bogomil

The eastern systems usually have no creator-god; no monoteistic god; hierarchy below practise; individualistic; and the aim is a personal transmutation.

Abramic religions have a 'boss' at the top, who has total power; hierarchy, doctrine and ritual above practise; run on collective basis and the aim is a passive recieving of external divine benefits (grace etc).

...

So when doctrines contains open commands of violence and the system is saturated by power-hierarchy thinking, you'll have to deny the whole branch of psychological studies on this, by denying the effect on those exposed to it. This is valid for indoctrination-systems as Hirler-jugend, Mao's red cadres, the cult around Stalin and ofcourse children from extremist-christian and -moslem families.

Completely agree! This is exactly the issue I have with all organized religions (though as you say, Eastern religions aren't quite as dogmatic/hierarchical, which is what I mean by "organized" as the Western ones, which IMO is a good thing).

Re Peacevic

Thanks for your response.

To forestall any debate-technical excesses, type:

" 'They' are not too good, so 'we' are justified in our own (small) bad ways; only preventative ofcourse",

I'm not trying to excel the 'virtues' of eastern systems to utopian proportions, there are examples of misuse there also. It's more a question of average manifestations, attitudes and consequences originating from basically clearcut constellations of whatever options mankind has to relate to life, other people and the 'beyond' (when applied).

And I believe that it can't be said too often: While western extremist christianity seemingly is housebroken to secular, liberal democratic society, the basic attitude of invasion/dominance is still only one political unrest away to erupt openly.

You would expect a group, which often literally follows their book blindly, to stress the importance of this book's admonition: "A 'yes' is a yes, and a 'no' is a no". But reality has shown me, that "the aim justifies the means" being the guideline.

When a group for a long time has demonstrated sneaky methods, being hypocritical and opportunistic, it will take more than a few sanctimoneous sermons or "we're persecuted, inspite of us being clinical white (with a shade of optical blue)" to re-establish confidence.

So extremist christians.....instead of sitting back, passively waiting for the next dose of divine grace or redemption only at the price of prayer and grovelling, justifying the next possible act of terror against the unholy.......go out and do some REAL 'soup-kitchening'.

Isn't that the official excuse you always use: Love?

So let's have it out in the open. For the invasive fringe of christianity 'love' is redefined as 'war', ofcourse for the victims' own good, as they now are given a chance to get to Disneyland in the sky. Double-talk.

reply to post by bogomil

Well yeah of course I agree with the problem of indoctrination from birth, i.e. it results in a biased upbringing and therefor "freewill" or the ability to "choose" has been greatly reduced. I'm well aware we have tons of social studies and psychological theories on this brainwashing/programming that we have been discussing.

However my point was that both Eastern traditions and the Abramic religions, at their very heart and core, have the same Divine reality and de-programming. Yeah I agree in the West its really hidden within a hierarchy of control and power, however I have found the same kind of division/sides/debates within Buddhist circles, monasteries, monks, etc....... Its again the plagued characteristics of unrefined humanity that bring this to the table in any religion/philosophy.

Although I will say that if one was to independently read the materials of East and West, that the East gets straight to the point and leaves the truth less covered up than the West. Even passive receiving of Divine grace is something practiced in the East as Bhakti or a number of other names.

In all respect; aren't you taking some points a bit far from a wish of demonstrating your opinion correct (as an exception from my often grumpy attitudes, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you). The consequences of your opinion would be, that there is no such thing as social manipulation/engineering. That people 'choose', independent of indoctrination, brainwashing etc.

No no no no not be any means is that my opinion. To set one in concrete I'll say that everything is social manipulation/brainwashing and I even question the reality of freewill or choice itself having myself glimpsed realities where there was no I, or you, or us, or them. I see this all as Illusion, however I see the answer to the Illusion being at the core of these religions, although to that its necessary to strip away some of the emperors clothes.

I ofcourse agree with you (I take it?), that an ideal would be to let people make their own decissions, and as you seem to be both knowledgable and reasonable, I have some problems understanding your polarized attitude on this special point. I have to ask: Are you defending an Abramic position? Under pretension of a 'neutral' position.

Yes an ideal would be allow each one their own decisions, however every upbringing has brainwashing and bias built in from the start, so this turns into a philosophical dilemma (not to mention the whole illusion thing).

I can't really say I'm defending anything except the heart/core of it all. The absolute truth, God, Nonduality, unlabled/unfiltered reality, the complete deprogramming and stripping away of all the unrefinements/impurities, and the highest potential for humanity devoid of being slaves to impulses, addictions, etc. Not a your God vs. My God kind of way ...but a living reality beyond words that cannot be argued with and is Absolute.

That aspect of it I do defend, but all the intricacies after that which are the cause of labels, distinctions, and separation are practically null and void to me, however are significant because it is those details that "broken humanity" takes as excuses to justify terrorism and other completely bass-ackwords justifications.

Re Dominicus

I just brought up the social/environmental impact to make sure, we agree on this, so we don't have to jump back and forth to different levels.

So I'm aware, that this point didn't 'prove' anything about the essential question: The intrinsic qualities in either mankind or doctrinal systems (hope this is an acceptable presentation. suggestions of change welcomed).

But I don't mind digressing a bit first, relating to this quote:


"However my point was that both Eastern traditions and the Abramic religions, at their very heart and core, have the same Divine reality and de-programming. Yeah I agree in the West its really hidden within a hierarchy of control and power, however I have found the same kind of division/sides/debates within Buddhist circles, monasteries, monks, etc"

The last shall be the first, so......the exoteric versions of most religions/semi-religions seem to be rather uniform in methodology (though not on details ofcourse), as they are based on human nature. And in the exoteric versions mankind wants, what it always wants: Leaders, helpers, a free lunch of understanding and all the other herd characteristics.

At the esoteric level, the heart and core, I can't see any similar 'divine reality' between eastern systems and abramic religion. I've often seen this postulate, but never understood it. I'll not insult you by suggesting ignorance on your part, but rather ask for an explanation. The two-three (including tao'ism) major eastern 'reality' models are of type 'nameless', and definitely not with that kind of 'identity' (in a deeper sense of the word) as Jahveh or Allah. The only real similarity I know of is BrahmaN, who/which is comparable to Ain Soph (not existing in christianity or islam).

Quote: "Even passive receiving of Divine grace is something practiced in the East as Bhakti or a number of other names."

True. But Bhakti (as devotion) isn't the ultimate esoteric aim, and is not identical with compassion, which comes as a 'fringe benefit' from enlightenment, though not as 'given'.

Total agreement concerning the samsara/nirvana perspective, though the finer details can be very complex. (but this direction really will bring us completely OFF-TOPIC, where we already are halfway out).

Apparently also agreement on freedom to choose.

Quote: "Not a your God vs. My God kind of way ...but a living reality beyond words that cannot be argued with and is Absolute."

But that's exactly what many of us protest so vehemently about. Systems having premature and elitist answers, not based on 'reality' beyond words. (I 'been there, done that' but I don't talk much about it except when establishing valid communication channels).

I believe we in a round-about way returned to square one, with a kind of agreement this time. You see, the main purpose of my participation on threads like this one isn't to terminate religion. It's to voice a loud protest against those organisations or doctrines, which want to enforce it. And that kind of exoteric religion does, imo, contain no small amount of evils.

reply to post by bogomil

Quote: "Even passive receiving of Divine grace is something practiced in the East as Bhakti or a number of other names."

True. But Bhakti (as devotion) isn't the ultimate esoteric aim, and is not identical with compassion, which comes as a 'fringe benfit' from enlightenment.

I'd also add that the Eastern religions don't tend to "receive" Divine grace from a supreme being. Instead one "achieves it" through personal growth (sometimes over many lifetimes). Also, while there are methods taught in the Eastern religions that enable one to achieve that growth, they tend to be less prescriptive (though often more difficult and with fewer guarantees, in my opinion) than the methods the Abramic religions teach.

I use the word "tend" intentionally as there are definitely exceptions on both sides.

You might like to read my thread on the subject. People tend to only see the bad things of others.


Christian Terrorism

Re

Eventually it boils down to 'truth', and here I have arrived to the same conclusion as Jain: We have to settle for approximative 'truth' (a difficult position for my personal character, I would love to have absolutes).

The small percentage of esoterics concentrates on refining their own relationship to 'truth' and naturally (from knowing the pitfalls of the path towards 'truth' through direct experience) they don't insist on enforcing 'answers', as 'answers' can't be reduced to a set of mechanistic formulas, which are 'smaller' than the totality of existence the formulas try to describe.

An approximate 'truth' is a map of one specific and defined area (of the territory). The esoteric tries to enlarge this area and, in some cases, make a suitable map of it.

Such esoteric maps are the most common basis for later emerging doctrinal systems (except when such doctrines are pure constructions for social-engineering purposes), and are intrinsically insufficient and lack the dimension of direct experience.

So when used exoterically by a majority of mankind (which seems to live in a state of sleepwalking) the doctrinal systems are at best toys for speculation, at worst weapons in the hands of sociopaths, where the doctrines lead to pre-arranged options (simulations of 'free will' or 'choice').

Quote from 'Peacevic':

"Also, while there are methods taught in the Eastern religions that enable one to achieve that growth, they tend to be less prescriptive (though often more difficult and with fewer guarantees, in my opinion) than the methods the Abramic religions teach."

From an esoteric perspective, the eastern systems emphasize the experience aspect, which admittedly is more difficult than abramic just submitting and being rewarded.

From the exoteric perspective, the abstract sleepwalker attitudes are similar in east and abramic systems. For christians and muslims, there's the afterlife Disneyland in the sky, if you've been a good little doctrinalist (= passively following orders), or alternatively being grilled or living in permanent chill (if you've been an individualist). For the eastern exoteric there's the rather existentially passive mechanism of 're-incarnation' (with 'karma' as a sub-doctrinal guideline) promising an afterlife either in a hedonistic heaven (the 'spiritual' equalent of a Florida retirement) or as a beetle.

Both a 'jam tomorrow' promise, leading to a disinterest in direct experience.

At the physical and/or practical level of mundane involvment though, the differences between east and abramic systems are considerable. The eastern system implies, that 'we all have an intrinsic potential for 'truth' or 'reality' without a pricetag', there's no run against time, so if not in this incarnation, then the next'. This leads in its negative extremes to apathy.

The abramic doctrines have pricetags on 'truth' or 'reality', there's a timelimit and no second chances, once the mundane part is over. This leads in its negative extremes to an exaggerated mover-and-shaker mundane behaviour, a kind of existential ADS from sheer hyperdynamic desperation.

It's unavoidable, that this hyperdynamics will result in even the absurdity of: "I can maybe score points, if I enlist people or kill dissidents", and it saturates the cultures originating from it with competitive attitudes, as expressed by financial status or military might.

It's really all the same basic attitude, when extremist christians beat the drum for climbing Jacob's ladder: "Closer to you, Boss in heavenly Disneyland" in its various manifestations. The preachers will preach, the homocidial will kill, and the soupkitcheners will soupkitchen in vain, as this really give no pauline points (though brother James amongst the original disciples said it did, and consequently is removed from those amongst the many bibles stressing the grovel approach).

Re Sinter

Looked at your OP on the linked thread. Very nice work, stressing the importance of not being forced into black/white rhetoric or demagogy, where either part of an insane conflict vie for sympathy, justification or enlistment.

Personally it's taken me some time on ATS to learn, that if you get involved in pro/contra debates and acknowledge SOME points to either side, it'll be used as an excuse for a wholesale package without any nuances.

So even if I'm getting horribly repetitive in many of my posts, I want to hammer home my own position of: "There are MORE alternatives"

than

"Us or 'them' "

"Us or chaos"

"Only our OPTIONS are valid"

etc.

The situation is like having children: "But SHE made funny faces FIRST"

And the parent: "But you BOTH stop from NOW" (well knowing, that it'll continue hidden or in new forms with new justifications and excuses).

reply to post by bogomil

Eventually it boils down to 'truth', and here I have arrived to the same conclusion as Jain: We have to settle for approximative 'truth' (a difficult position for my personal character, I would love to have absolutes).

I would have to disagree, I find the commonality in East and West as permanent Enlightenment as a living direct experience of the Absolute. Although in that Enlightenment, there is no longer a Self, an I, selfishness, etc. SO that person becomes completely Selfless and is all about others no matter the cost, knowing that others are also him/herself.

Its a Universality of Enlightenment esoterically speaking in East and West's major religions and the common goal. Personally I think we are all evolving towards that goal and any kind of terrorism will eventually be null and void since its impossible to do such an act in selflessness.

The selflessness of Enlightenment as a common outcome of the main goal shared by all these paths seems to be an absolute. I myself have also glimpsed the states of No 'I' ....even though there was no one to glimpse these, in retrospect I can say it did happen and that it seems to be more real and alive that this mundane reality everyone is operating on.

Regardless, I agree with the saying that there is as many paths as people, since each one has their own intricacies, vices, virtues all which play huge parts in the obtaining of the goal.

An approximate 'truth' is a map of one specific and defined area (of the territory). The esoteric tries to enlarge this area and, in some cases, make a suitable map of it.

I would have to disagree and say that all truths (with an S) are relative, but that the state of no I, being infinite and absolute would be the One objective and living truth that completely knocks everything else out of the water.

In example it is agreed upon virtually universally that 2 + 2 = 4. However looking at that equation through the eyes of the genius mathematician Georg Cantor, he would have told you that from 0 to 1, you can slice the space just between these 2 digits infinitely and there is no end to how small the increments get. forever being divided more and more. SO he would say 2+2 = 4 is an illusion and that the reality is ∞ + ∞ = ∞

Being a Mystic myself and traversing for the last decade the inner realms, outer doctrine, esoteric puzzles and the like ...I can say that I at least glimpsed the truth on many occasions .....and that seems to be the place of perfection, of the highest form possible for humanity ....its complete annihilation of one's own Identity which then leaves the Identity of objectivity, or all things, people, places, situations, etc

Though I agree in as much as the original premise has been completely covered up with dogma, exotericism, ego, pride, broken humanities subjectivism, etc. Yes the concept, or reality, of God and the answer to the Illusion, is soooooo dam simple. Yet somehow "we" stand in the way of "that"

Anyway good talks.

reply to post by David_Reale


Also don't forget to mention the Xtian falangists who operated out of spain and the middle east. There is now an American group claiming to be falangists. Falangists started out as Hard-core fascists in Spain during the time of Franco.

reply to post by bogomil


Thank you Bogomil. I happy to hear you understand my point.

I think it's time for us to stop acting like children. I say us because we all act childish every once in a while.
Ever since the sixties it seems the world is going in a downward spiral.

Not only middle eastern nations have become subjected to a very dogmatic view on the world.
The west with the US as example also became victimized of fundamental religious groups. The situation is so bad that some are even talking about the dumbification of humanity.

I've found a very interesting and for me amazing video on it. I'd like you to watch it.

Here you go :

Re Dominicus

You wrote:

"I would have to disagree, I find the commonality in East and West as permanent Enlightenment as a living direct experience of the Absolute."

As an ideal I share it. But I don't see much actualized and permanent enlightenment around.

Quote: " Although in that Enlightenment, there is no longer a Self, an I, selfishness, etc. SO that person becomes completely Selfless and is all about others no matter the cost, knowing that others are also him/herself."

Though I believe this belongs in the department of finer details (as to this thread), no objections either. Only I would like to include the 'ultimate' (whatever it turns out to be, once you're 'there') in this category. Thus excluding personificated 'gods' etc.

Quote: "Personally I think we are all evolving towards that goal and any kind of terrorism will eventually be null and void since its impossible to do such an act in selflessness."

I can only hope you're right, and I'm wrong; but I don't see any cosmic principles leading to an automatic evolving towards enlightenment. But that's a long story of cosmogony and cosmology.

Quote: "The selflessness of Enlightenment as a common outcome of the main goal shared by all these paths seems to be an absolute"

The operative words here are "the main goal shared by all these paths". I still disagree.

Quote: "I myself have also glimpsed the states of No 'I' ....even though there was no one to glimpse these, in retrospect I can say it did happen and that it seems to be more real and alive that this mundane reality everyone is operating on."

Hm. As I said earlier, I've 'been there, done that'. I'm not trying to appear as in possession of undefined enigmatic wisdom, but that is a subject I would only bring up in special contexts. But it IS more 'real'.

Quote: "I would have to disagree and say that all truths (with an S) are relative"

The 'relative' is actually one of the main characteristics of an approximative, 'local truth'. 'Smaller truths' are only true as compared to their immediate environment (be it abstractions or 'physical').

Quote: "but that the state of no I, being infinite and absolute would be the One objective and living truth that completely knocks everything else out of the water."

While most likely ultimately true (but who knows for certain), it has no value for anyone not 'being there' except as an abstract ideal. Your mathematical example is precise and eventually correct, but do you in your present existence arrange your, say bank accounts, on such principles? Or walk in front of a lorry, because it basically is made of imaginary fractals.


Happy about your 'glimpses', that's more than what most people have. But some of your far-reaching interpretations maybe need more than glimpses (no offense).

Quote: "Yes the concept, or reality, of God and the answer to the Illusion, is soooooo dam simple. Yet somehow "we" stand in the way of "that" "

From the abomination of the movie "What the bleep do we know" to the book on Mahamudra there's a whole world of speculations on who the 'we' are and how the 'standing in the way' originated. Even from an experiental startingpoint unsullied by doctrines, there's still the last hurdle of 'doing through non-doing'. A, I hope friendly and inclusive: "He, he". I have no little fun with these zen-like paradoxes.

Re Sinter

The pleasure is reciprocial.

Quote: "Ever since the sixties it seems the world is going in a downward spiral"

You were there also? I believed, I was the only fossil here. The best of the sixties was a maveric movement, and as with all maveric movements TPTB quickly take over and pervert the original direction of the maverickery into something looking identical, but actually being a 180 degree turn. I don't think this is an extra dose of dumbification, it's just keeping dumbness at its usual level.

Quote: "Not only middle eastern nations have become subjected to a very dogmatic view on the world.
The west with the US as example also became victimized of fundamental religious groups. The situation is so bad that some are even talking about the dumbification of humanity."

I'm a very enthusiastic conspiracy buff, except that I don't believe in most of it. But it doesn't take much to believe in the reality of orchestrations, type Machiavellian, where polarizations are fabricated to keep the herd from being interested in the real issues.

I have a theory, that the doctrinally based religious confrontations are almost useless now for TPTB. The issues are so absurd from a modern perspective, that only the very bewildered can find any meaning in it. So soon we'll see new sets of 'enemies' emerge. An environmental catastrophe; a UFO invasion or maybe an unexplainable global economical collapse (though with China around that would be risky. China could eventually 'win' that way).

Quote: "I've found a very interesting and for me amazing video on it. I'd like you to watch it."

Sorry. My internet access is restricted to what they could do around the bronze age. Without the religious part, I live like a somewhat high-tech amish. Melted snow for water and that kind of things, though I'm not a noble savage. Just weird.

PS In theory I'm very fond of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand. In practise I prefer an active inclusive position in the middle. But it's true, that this makes almost everyone your opponent in a world of black/white.

reply to post by bogomil

Quote: "Ever since the sixties it seems the world is going in a downward spiral"

Sorry I was not around yet, but I've payed lots of attention whenever the subject came to speak.

I'm a very enthusiastic conspiracy buff, except that I don't believe in most of it. But it doesn't take much to believe in the reality of orchestrations, type Machiavellian, where polarizations are fabricated to keep the herd from being interested in the real issues.

I don't know how I could said what I did cause thinking about it made me realize I am convinced you are right.
Already for a long time even.

The issues are so absurd from a modern perspective, that only the very bewildered can find any meaning in it. So soon we'll see new sets of 'enemies' emerge.

Absurd yes. Very bewildered only... No. But I happen to see a lot of those people so my ideas are clouded from experience.

The video was a short talk from Neil DaGrasse Tyson where he explained why he got head on with religion. He did because they were trespassing on his field of expertise .

After the war on terror their will be another card, another threat An alien threat. I'd wish people would stop and see what they are ignoring or blind to.

In practise I prefer an active inclusive position in the middle. But it's true, that this makes almost everyone your opponent in a world of black/white.

It's great to finally meet someone with a similar mind set. Somewhere in the middle. I've noticed I got people on their edge and I even get ridiculed for it. It's about time I read Rand cause every time it attracts me somehow I never heard of Heinlein though.

Really cool reply. I appreciate it a lot. I actually needed to google a couple of times.... English is not my native language.

If you want to quote stuff use the button above that says ex text or quote. The mods are pretty thorough on it. You could also use brackets like this :

text...[/ex] Last bracket was for it not to work you should use ] that one as well.

Kind regards

~ Sinter

Dear OP,

I would like to correct you on a few points concerning the Freedomites AKA Doukhobor of Sons of Freedom.

There are many misconceptions about this group of religious believers.

The bombing of the train in Nelson British Columbia was NEVER proven to be from this group. No one from this group was ever convicted of this crime. And it should be noted that one of their leaders(Peter Lordly) was on this train and said to be the target of the bombing. Also other Doukhobors were on this train as well and they were unharmed. Peter Lordly lost his life.

In no time in the Canadian history of the group was death involved due to bombings or burnings. Loss of property was the main loss and the Doukhobors were imprisoned for these acts.

Why were they protesting? Their children were being taken from them because they did not believe in government run education. Therefore they burned the schools. They wanted their children back!

In the 1960's over 800 Doukhobors marched over 450 miles to literally sit at the prison gates and wait for their people to be released. It took over 10 years for this to happen.

1962 About 800 Sons of Freedom begin walk from the Kootenays to Agassiz Mountain Prison in the Lower Mainland to join their imprisoned relatives. They live at the gates of the prison for 10 years.
Source

A lot of the children from this era are still alive and can tell you first hand what was going on. They lost a lot and are still suffering from what was being imposed upon them.

So yes in a way the were terrorist but largely due to the fact that terror was being brought down upon them.

They fought for what they believed in and over time the Canadian government has apologized for SOME of the atrocities that they inflicted on these people.

If you ever Really want to know about this group please feel free to look them up. There is plenty of information out there on them.

Just my 2 cents

I am not religious or a part of this group but I do know some that are and they are a fascinating people. Strong and true to what they believe.

reply to post by David_Reale


Great thread, S+F.

Here, the words of Christopher Hitchens very much echo the OP; and criticises the church for the means at which it gained it's power, and mass following:-



Hitchens is very well-read, and tends not to dictate "facts" or form opinion; without having the nessasary evidence or reason to do so.

This isn't a condemnation of believers; only a condemnation or the cricisim of the History of Catholocism.

I would, therefore, appreciate any criticism of his words.

Peace, and civility.