No, I am stating that certain words Christ spoke in the Bible have only one possible interpretation. Others, granted, could be seen as literal or symbolic. I don't claim any special knowledge of theology. I have no way of knowing whether transubstantiation occurs or not, which precise doctrine of the Trinity is correct or even, ultimately, whether or not Christianity is correct (I base my religion on faith). I do know that there is only one interpretation of certain statements Christ, according to the Bible, made, however, and those statements clearly forbid murder, torture and the other evils committed in the Crusades and the Inquisition.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Hard to believe since you have only stripped gears. . .

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

Apparently the Christians of the Crusades and the Inquisition dont agree with you that there is only one possible interpretation.

But it is typical of most theists to believe that their interpretation must be the correct one to the exclusion of all others...

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

I present the stronger historical possibility that some of them didn't know Christ's words and others didn't care. Hypocrisy in organized religion is common, and it is also important to note that, at the time of the atrocities you mention, the common people were not allowed to own Bibles and at any rate many of them were illiterate.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

...in your opinion.

You are telling me that your interpretation is absolutely correct. And that people that dont agree with you are absolutely wrong.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

No, I'm stating that the dictionary's interpretation is absolutely correct. For example, the commandment to love one's enemies clearly forbids murdering Saracen civilians. The commandment (found first in the Old Testament) to love one's neighbor as oneself clearly forbids the atrocities committed by the Inquisition against Jews. This is the definition of the word love:

1. transitive and intransitive verb feel tender affection for somebody: to feel tender affection for somebody such as a close relative or friend, or for something such as a place, an ideal, or an animal

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...px?search=love

Now, unless you can present a case showing how this definition is consistent with the actions of the Crusaders or the Inquisitors, then obviously my conclusions aren't just subjective opinions.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

actually, the masses didn't own books because they couldn't read. Word of mouth spread alot more things than did written text. And, as we all know, it's like the witness thing....where you show 50 people an incident and then find 50 interpretations of that incident.....which, gradually loses all context and basis in fact.