Is it fair to have higher expectations of people who are professed Christians?

lol. Randy, your to much

 (your you're)
 (to too)

You have got to be kidding. How do you put that line through words?

You forgot: (Lol LOL)
Spelling rules are the same even for words/acronyms that are new and unusual This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at April 23, 2018 3:14 PM MDT

Wow, more than a thousand or so, or maybe less than a thousand or so, and maybe some untold numbers of followers or so, and some untold numbers of non followers or so. 
Wow, just to name a few. Can you name more?
Wow texmo, you impress me. Lotsa information here. Thank you.




This post was edited by antibiotic at April 23, 2018 3:53 PM MDT

I think Jim Jones was responsible for almost 1,000.
Koresh, less than 100.

Crusades, at least 1,000,000
https://www.reference.com/history/many-people-died-crusades-4483019b5f8684c5

QUICK ANSWER

Estimates of crusade deaths range from as low as 1 million people all the way to 9 million


Inquisition, not that bad, 30,000 - 300,000.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanities.internationaleducationnews

Estimates of the number killed by the Spanish Inquisition, which Sixtus IV authorised in a papal bull in 1478, have ranged from 30,000 to 300,000. Some historians are convinced that millions died.
n

WWII, 50,000,000 - 80,000,000. (Catholics fought on both sides.)

Rwanda 800,000 (Most perpetrators and victims were Catholic.)


To name more I could include WWI, Northern Ireland, most civil wars, etc.

Oh, please do name more and include all the wars you can. How about the US civil war, Viet-Nam war, American wars against native peoples of North America. Read about King Philip's War. Indians were killed, supported by scriptures from the bible, for working on Sundays. Indians didn't know what border lines were, until the greedy white Christians built stone walls for their private farming and killed the native peoples for entering their self claimed properties. Read about how the greedy white Christian beheaded Metacomet and sold his wife and child, as slaves, in the Bahamas. The bible is a very powerful book, ain't it? 

Mark 13:7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

Luke 21:9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

Jesus said, "Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand?" If talks don't work, it's ok to wage war. (Lk. 14:31). Jesus also said, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe"  Do what it takes. Be strong and safe.  (Lk. 11:21). Jesus seems to recognize that war and violence are sometimes justified. This post was edited by antibiotic at April 23, 2018 7:00 PM MDT

Indians were not killed in support of scriptures. Taking out of context and twisting is very disingenuous of you and those perpetrators. You use 'Christian' in a very loose interpretation as anyone professing a belief in Christ. In reality, a Christian is someone that follows Christ. 
(Matthew 7:21-23) “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
 (1 Peter 2:21-23) In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving a model for you to follow his steps closely. 22 He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth. 23 When he was being insulted, he did not insult in return. When he was suffering, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the One who judges righteously.


Hearing of wars is not the same as participating in wars, is it?

Read in context and you may notice the point is not the same as you summary:

(Luke 14:28-33) For example, who of you wanting to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the expense to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, he might lay its foundation but not be able to finish it, and all the onlookers would start to ridicule him, 30 saying: ‘This man started to build but was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king marching out against another king in war does not first sit down and take counsel whether he is able with 10,000 troops to stand up to the one who comes against him with 20,000? 32 If, in fact, he cannot do so, then while that one is yet far away, he sends out a body of ambassadors and sues for peace. 33 In the same way, you may be sure that not one of you who does not say good-bye to all his belongings can be my disciple.
(Luke 11:14-23) Later he expelled a speechless demon. After the demon came out, the speechless man spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said: “He expels the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.” 16 And others, to test him, began demanding a sign out of heaven from him. 17 Knowing their thinking, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and a house divided against itself falls. 18 In the same way, if Satan is also divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub. 19 If I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges. 20 But if it is by means of God’s finger that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you. 21 When a strong, well-armed man guards his palace, his belongings remain secure. 22 But when someone stronger than he is comes against him and conquers him, that man takes away all his weapons in which he was trusting, and he divides up the things he took from him. 23 Whoever is not on my side is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

...do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, 

"Such things must happen", sounds like a conduct of accepting something which is real and welcomed, after admitting, "do not be alarmed".

I suppose you could isolate it like that.

(Matthew 24:6) You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/11/06/opinion/06atrocities_timeline.html?ref=sunday

Antibiotic was asking about those perpetrated by Catholics.

Puritans and Quakers were not Catholics.

Hmm, Crusades, Inquisition,  WWII, and Rwanda was Puritans and Quakers? I was thinking that Catholics fought in those, and in some cases, both sides.

The snow will turn to rain and became warmer in the afternoon. Looking at sunshine with a bigger warm up, tomorrow. Slow start in the morning, but the light will get brighter and we will see more truth.

Perhaps for those that survive Catholic carnage.

The Pope (Sixtus IV at the time) didn't do the Inquisition, that was Ferdinand II who was king of Aragon (and later of all Spain). Sixtus' sin was one of omission - he sat back and let it happen, much as Pius XII did in World War II. He did sign the bull but I doubt that he read it.
The Church was in the depths of its corruption at the time. Luther was still yet to nail his 95 Theses to the door of All Saints church, selling of indulgences was rampant and this was a shameless cash grab by a king wnose coffers were strained by his wife's funding of Columbus.
The Crusades were also about money, specifically the tolls imposed by the Ottoman Empire on the caravans to India and China. Religion was a convenient excuse.

If the Popes taught Catholics the Bible, Catholics would not have participated in all of the atrocities they have. Seems whatever is in their region, they have to be part of it.

Kings ruled by the grace of God - Dei Gratia is still inscribed on British coins. The concept of separation of Church and State was unheard of, so the Church was practically required to be politically active. The Holy Roman Empire (centred on Vienna, not Rome) had its finger in everything, the Habsburgs pulled the Pope's strings. If the Church elected an intractable Pope, the Empire was more than happy to set up an Antipope in opposition and did so more than once.
As for teaching the Bible, that was impossible to much of the laity, who couldn't understand Latin. The Vulgate was all that was available in pre-Gutenberg times.

With all of the opposition by the Church to translate the Bible to the 'vulgar tongue', it's not surprising. Burning translators at the stake helped delay translation.

Even if the Church had required mandatory translation of the Bible into the vernacular, it wouldn't have helped much. Before the invention of the printing press, everything had to be hand-scribed. Laborious, time-consuming and above all EXPENSIVE. The bulk of the peasantry was illiterate and those few that could read couldn't afford a Bible. Add to that the fact that the best manuscripts were beyond the reach of translators, in territories controlled by Islamic Saracens who weren't feeling particularly kindly towards Christian infidels at the time.

Sad how they put themselves above the average person. Why were they educated in their common tongue and Latin while the average person was not literate in their native tongue? If translation couldn't be done anyway, why forbid it?
Why forbid Wycliffe and the Lollard's from teaching the Bible? The Bible condemns the Catholic Church and the learned Catholic Clergy know it.

[God’s Word Given Special Status
Protestant reformers emphasized the importance of the Scriptures. They rejected traditions, although Martin Marty, senior editor of The Christian Century magazine, says that during the past century, “more and more Protestants have been willing to see a relationship between the Bible and tradition.” This was not true of their “ancestors in faith,” however. For them “the Bible held a special status, and tradition or papal authority could never match it.”
This attitude accelerated interest in the translation, distribution, and study of the Bible. During the mid-15th century—over half a century before Reformation wheels were set rolling—Luther’s fellow German Johannes Gutenberg provided forthcoming Protestantism with a useful tool. Having developed a method of printing from movable type, Gutenberg produced the first printed Bible. Luther saw in this invention great possibilities, and he called printing “God’s latest and best work to spread the true religion throughout the world.”
More people could now possess their own Bible, a development the Catholic Church did not endorse. In 1559 Pope Paul IV ruled that no Bible could be printed in the vernacular without church approval, and this the church refused to grant. In fact, in 1564 Pope Pius IV stated: “Experience has shown that if reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is permitted indiscriminately, . . . more harm than good arises therefrom.”
The Reformation produced a new kind of “Christianity.” It replaced the authority of the papacy with individual free choice. Catholic Mass was replaced by the Protestant liturgy, and awesome Catholic cathedrals by normally less pretentious Protestant churches.]

"Less prententious". The Schullers, who built the Crystal Cathedral, aren't Catholic.

Higher than those you would have of a person who doesn't profess to be a Christian. 

That's an interesting observation, your second sentence. I suppose that could be said of anyone, no?