The one who defines peace is the winner.

Get the **** out, Do you know anything on Islamic history?
Really dood "aggresive arabs coming to slaughter your nation in prehistoric times does not count to your huge cuck butthurt sadly"

PREHISTORIC
Lets go ahead and call it that, even though Muhammad had created it at around 600 AD, Hundreds of years after the birth,actions,and death of Jesus.
And to prove that you're even more wrong, from 600 AD - 1250 AD Islam was one of the most peaceful religions in the whole world and even resented military conquest.
And the claims of a history of barbarianism is ******* TUBULAR.
During the land expansion of Islamic Beliefs all of those who did not believe in the word of Muhammad/Allah weren't beheaded as your claims state. If anything they were aloud to continue their beliefs, as so long as they paid a simple TAX.
On top of that, Yes they did use military force to push the borders and beliefs of the religion, but they never forced a widespread amount of people to convert.

Islamic scholars even despised and denounced African kings/warlords who claimed to be "Islamic" but still conquest neighboring kingdoms for the wealth and "lootz"

So you can get the **** out here anon for your Indoctrinated beliefs of a religion you have taken 0 ******* time to study/look at, while still probably being a follower of a religion that has done equally wrong things in the past/present.

How can people thumb up this hogwash?

The Islamic conquest of North-west Africa was bloody. The Islamic conquest of Spain was bloody. The Islamic conquest of Sicily and southern Italy was bloody. The Islamic conquest of southern France was bloody, the Islamic conquest of Byzantine/Greece was bloody. The Islamic conquest of Corsica and Sardinia was bloody.

People were murdered like cattle, raped and sold as slaves. Just like modern age ISIS.

Are you mentally ill?

" 600 AD - 1250 AD Islam was one of the most peaceful religions in the whole world and even resented military conquest."

They had targeted gathering land, more so than the "genocidal" conquest that >>#298
had set it to be.
Also Religion can spread without the push of military forces, and sometimes not always landmasses and kingdoms will loose some of their land from the inhabitants wanting to be annexed into the carrier of the religion because their current ruler doesn't provide as they see fit.

And you still don't admit that you're dead wrong.

The muslim conquest of Southern Europe were extremely violent with tons of rape and murders by the "new overlords".

I'll just repeat what you said: "So you can get the **** out here anon for your Indoctrinated beliefs of a religion you have taken 0 ******* time to study/look at, while still probably being a follower of a religion that has done equally wrong things in the past/present."

What are you even trying with that wikipedia page? That wiki page does not include any of the conquests or wars. It doesn't even mention the crusades at all, so what is your purpose?

Of course you're going to be smacked by [citation needed] when everything you've done is screenshotting some random written crap WITHOUT the source.
I won't even bother reading it unless you provide where it's from.


You're doing it all wrong anyways. First you say: "That didn't happen" Now you say, "It's OK that I lied and that it actually happened BECAUSE this happened"
There have been massacres from both sides. So don't ******* lie.

You get mad at me for defending my argument because you know, It's what you do. .

And you present to me a REALLY bias map that lists all the conquest "battles" of Islam which seems to be millions, compared to what seems to be about 20 crusade conquests, But lets not forget that a lot of these "Conquests" that Islam had were just knocking on their door with a big army saying "Hey we own this place, You can surrender if you want"
Which doesn't seem so bad considering the only real "Heavy/Bad" battles that Islam had committed were against Byzantium.

But the "Battles" the crusades had were more like slaughter fests against whole populations of people, as close to a genocide as you can get, and only happened because rather than trying to understand Islam, they got scared of it and just jabbed it with a pointy stick.

Did you even read the text?

I’m not really taking side here. My ancestors are bunch of pyromaniac that worships anything that mildly impresses them. But since you seem to be fairly well informed in this topic, I am hoping you can help me with a question. I know that during the golden age, Arab country and their dominant religion, Islam made great discovery in multiple areas. Chemistry, medical, astronomy, mathematical, every major sec of human intellect is filled with their finger prints in early days. But that’s about it. Some time long ago, it just stops. No more great scientist, discovery and advancement… Well, maybe not entirely “no more”. But it is definitely outshined by Asians then the Europeans. And this knowledge black hole persists even today in term of scientific paper published [ webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090609003228/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file27330.pdf (best official citation I can locate)]. In fact, the only country that is comparable in the Middle East region is Israel whereas other countries, while the growth rate is strong, are still mostly playing catch up to the west and japan. What happened?

How can you say he's "fairly well informed in this topic" When the only thing he's been doing is lying about how "peaceful" the Islamic conquests were. He've not even touched on any other subject
You ask him a question about the history of science with the hopes that you'll get a reasonable answer?

Sorry =D. Since he is willing to start a conversation and mentioned the contribution of ancient Arab and Islam, I thought he is the person to ask. I fear that if I ask people in real life, I might get my teeth punched out (I need those for scientific reason). Regardless, any thought from you on this topic?

For the time being though:

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090609003228/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file27330.pdf

<<Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-98), for example, devoted much of his life to convincing Muslims in India "that western scientific thought was not antithetical to Islam." He reinterpreted the Qur'an to find passages consistent with reason and nature, and insisted that "Muslims have in the Koran the source of a rational religion attuned to modern man's scientific interests.">>


www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science

<<Just as there is no simple explanation for the success of Arabic science, there is no simple explanation for its gradual — not sudden, as al-Afghani claims — demise. The most significant factor was physical and geopolitical. As early as the tenth or eleventh century, the Abbasid empire began to factionalize and fragment due to increased provincial autonomy and frequent uprisings. By 1258, the little that was left of the Abbasid state was swept away by the Mongol invasion. And in Spain, Christians reconquered Córdoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248. But the Islamic turn away from scholarship actually preceded the civilization’s geopolitical decline — it can be traced back to the rise of the anti-philosophical Ash’arism school among Sunni Muslims, who comprise the vast majority of the Muslim world.>>



This one is huge:
www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Lewis_Bernard_What_Went_Wrong_Western_Impact_and_Middle_Eastern_Response_Oxford_University_Press_2002.pdf

What happened to the first source...? It suddenly linked to something completely unrelated

I read the first one, will save the second link as bed time material. This is ridiculously interesting. Not only is geographic and politic being that back bone of scientific growth, but also the basic ideology and principle. A centralized religion such as Islam that are so resistant to change in the end back fire, while the "rouge" religion like Christianity allowed different interpretation that fuel the scientific development...etc

You, good sir, I can't thank you enough.

Meanwhile, my people are on an island sitting fire everywhere and worshipping pigs that grow way to big XD. Nevertheless, I'm content.

You got what you needed?

yap, thank you.

No need to apologise, I was just a bit befuddled. I can probably try to contribute and help you tomorrow. I'm very busy the next 26 hours unfortunately. I've already spent too much time on this discussion.

Was the first map biased? You can always google images of the conquest timeline if you don't like them.

You started with wild claims that the muslim conquest were peaceful and without much shedding of blood.
The conquest of North-west Africa was bloody. The conquest of Spain was bloody. The conquest of Sicily and southern Italy was bloody. The conquest of southern France was bloody, the conquest of Byzantine/Greece was bloody. The conquest of Corsica and Sardinia was bloody

Now you say, that it's alright because of the crusades.
Do you even have any idea for why the crusades happened? They were a reaction to the muslim aggression. The military forces of Islam were basicly knocking on the walls of Rome.

Even your pathetic source without source says the mameluks victory and continuing massacre of Acre was one of the most grisly moments of the crusades. "Hurr durr, only the christians did bad things"

Lets not fight. I brought cookies.

Not even participating in this, but I'll take a cookie. Yoink!

Just like literally all the other religions

honestly buddism is more of a philosophy than a religion. It's like religion without the god part and just believing in the teachings of a nice dude.

Depends. Theravada as it is practiced among lay-people is little more than your classical sacrificial religion + ancestor worship. The monks of course are getting on the more phillosophical/psychological side of things. Most branches of Mahayana are in a way more secular than Theravada, with Zen being probably the most cut and dry phillosophical (then again, those are the wrong words to describe it).

oh okay interesting, I don't know a ton about it but I mainly went on what I had heard of it.

Buddhism is mad interesting bro, I recommend picking up some books on the subject (or there's some pretty good lectures by Allan Watts on Zen on the internet, something even on the Buccaneer Cove, I was told).

awesome thanks for the recommendation man

>103 replies
i'm just not gonna expand that.

They literally believe in the same god. It's exactly the same, and both religions are pretty ******* violent.

But... it wouldn't be any different
like at all

whoops, I think I got the wrong memo

KKK are not associated with christians. Please leave

True but they identified as Christians.

... just about did 90% of americans at the time

What?

Yeah of course they're not Christian why the **** else would they burn a cross in someones front ******* yard.

and who where they burning?
more Christians?

Christians killing Christians for being the wrong type of Christian is kinda a European pasttime.

OR, white supremests killing non whites?

could that be what the kkk was doing? The white supremests where killing based on ******* COLOUR?

They were doing that as well, and I don't think anyone is denying that- they were also just killing in the name of God.

Why don't you look it up.
Let's google "kkk". Oh look, I don't even have to open the first link, it's literally in the preview text.
"Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan. Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!"
Well would you look at that.

If you knew history then Christians killing Christians in the name of Christianity would not be news to you.

CHRISTianity is. As in actually following the teachings of Jesus/obeying christian situationalist ethics, however lots of people miss the point and apply the old testament laws to life. (The amendment of which was the ENTIRE POINT of jesus being sent to earth)

But Jesus told people to follow the old testament in the new testament. (Matthew 5:17-19)

No he didn't, you're taking the verse out of context and interpreting it in a literal sense when it was not meant to be taken as so.

www.gci.org/bible/matthew517

tl;dr "Christians are to respect the Old Testament as the Holy Scriptures of God. They are profitable, when used wisely, for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," and can make one "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15-16). But no one should place faith in the Law itself, for while the Law came through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus."

>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

His teaching was congruent with the laws, but he pushed away from them as black and white rules and more as guidelines that one should rationally apply to individual situations from a standpoint rooted in agape (unconditional love for ones fellow man and god).

Yeah just leave out 18-19 in that...

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

go into a christian area in africa and shout "I AM HOMOSEXUAL"

you will literally be stoned in the streets.

I imagine you really must be stoned in order to do that

uh what? can i get a example or source of this happening? because most christians are pretty damn peaceful people not including dumbasses like the westburo baptist faggots, they're more like a cult tbh.

since when was i racist?

oh you have enough time to respond to people screaming but not enough time to give me a source on your claim?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

brainbug and thejusticar
Uganda is an 85% christian country, they passed a law to make you legally allowed to kill someone you think is homosexual.

oh and big surprise, it was supported by, and based on, american christians saying homosexuals were a direct treath to ugandan families.

"nice cheap shot you made"

as opposed to what?
using muslim countries where thievery is punishable by having your hand cut off, to represent islam?
nice cheap shot, using the middle-east.

nope

ye

well, the agressive ones.
but everyone hates the agressive ones of every religion.

nah

I think I saw a documentary about that, actually. Or rather I was passing by a TV showing some gay related stuff in Africa, and the gay hate being supported by Americans.

I'll try to find it

www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/04/arizona-pastor-publicly-supports-death-by-stoning-for-homosexuals/
don't mind me, literally just googled "christians stone homosexual"

another crazy ass ***** , as you can see, pretty much all other pastors said, "lol no dumbass we aren't gonna stone gay people"

yes, and 80% of muslims say "voilence against civilians is NEVER justifiable, nor forgivable"

which begs the question: your point?

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/70-year-old-stoned-to-death-because-the-bible-says-to-stone-gays/news/2011/03/18/18138
apparently it's happening in america too.

woop woop.

thats not a christian, thats a crazy ass ***** beats other ****** with batteries. im also guessing if you check on that dude he probably had mental problems as well.

Excellent use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

i've given several other sources, and your reply to this one was literally just a carbon copy "no true scotsman" fallacy

but im not wrong, much with the uganda thing, thats a small portion of a group i dont really agree with, catholics. their beliefs are normally what people point to when they want to make extreme points about christianity, which is wrong. Also those rules were left by british people, not american pastors. i understand you have a point that its still bad but the way you worded it in original comment made it seem as if you were pointing you finger at all Christians, as if its their fault that a small crazy ass part of their group took things too far. im probably rambing but i dont give a ****

"the way you worded it in original comment made it seem as if you were pointing you finger at all Christians"


isn't that what this is all about?
pointing out that a small group of nutjobs don't define your religion?

yes thats the point, in my comments i never pointed out that all Muslims are extremist people chanting for the death of those that aren't like them. im trying to point out that in your comment those are not real Christians, as real christians would actually do as Christ said and treat everyone on this earth with love and respect.. a large amount of immoral stuff that is bundled with christianity is taken from the old testament, which most Christians in this day and age, do not follow entirely, yet a small and vocal minority still exist. man whats the point of this anymore, why am i still typing.

ye
breaking news: comments take less effort than searching the web.

because it's where it's happening.
geographical locations are not races.

look further up the thread, i'm sourcing **** at the moment.
more to follow, untill i get bored.

catholics are a branch of christianity, you know...
protestantism sprung out from catholism.

no Christianity came from Catholicism do your research you too pokemonstheshiz

no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

you dumb **** .

early christianity split into eastern orthodox christianity (what they have in Russia), and catholic roman christianity (currently dominant in southern europe and south america)
the reformation made several different churches split off from the roman catholic church, most notable is the lutherian protestants, fed up with the comercialism and "pay for salvation with gold" principles of the roman catholic church, made an anti-materialistic church. the lutherian protestant church. which is now dominant in north-western europe (Britain, Germany, France, Scandinavia)

i have only ever seen americans try to argue that catholism is not christian, and i have no ******* idea why.
they worship christ.
they have rituals to drink wine and bread as symbols of christ's body and blood.
they're literally the most heavily decorated churches around, because catholism encourages physical symbols of christ and the saints.

it was the center for christianity, with the capital of Rome, during the roman empire, and for hundreds of years after.

why the **** do you think catholism isn't christian?
who taught you that ******** ?

i'm not catholic.
and that just means the puritans lied.

I would argue for the puritans. Worshipers of the devil might be a bit dramatic, but think of it this way: Do you know much about Satanism? In one sentence; satanism is about worshiping yourself. This is only mildly relevant. Catholism was all about personal power, politics and strengthening the church's power in society. And by catholism I mean mostly the church itself, and those in it.


From an outside perspective you might see people worshipping idols, following the words of men more than the message of God. When you stray away from the path, and follow false idols, do you not worship the devil? I could phrase everything a bit better, but I hope you'll agree At least that's what the puritans thought.

well that is literally just the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

I would think praying to saints also could add to that perspective. Praying to humans rather than God could be taken as idol worship

That should've been part of my comment. Sorry for my terrible, and a bit ambiguous wording.

No worries. I thought it was an interesting perspective, I never really thought about that

Catholicism is still Christian

>implying the crusades weren't justified

It was a rational response to centuries of Islamic aggression.

So much for turning the other cheek, eh?

When Jesus said "If a man strikes your cheek, turn to him the other one as well", a strike on the cheek was referring to an insult on your honor, not physical violence. The latter of which is allowed to be defended against.

How do you know that it was about honor?

Of the many Old English words and phrases that have fallen out of use since the time of King James, this is one that has stayed within relatively close to modern vernacular.

Look it up, to strike someone's cheek doesn't mean actually hitting with the intent to harm, it basically flipping the bird at a guy.

You'd think that an all knowing and all powerful god would be able to make his instruction booklet a little clearer.

**** dude, this is pretty everyday stuff.

Even if it weren't, the bible wasn't originally in English, you know that right?

I know, so the all knowing god should've come up with a way to spread his message in an unambiguous way. We instead get a book that is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.

He did. It's called Greek.

>riddled with scientific innacuracies and contradicitons

consider the people writing it: ordinary folks that, while under divine influence, still saw the world in a way typical of people who lived in the Bronze Age. not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally.

Yeah, it is scientifically laughable. If these people were under 'divine influence' as you claim, perhaps they wouldn't have made so many errors, like Adam and Eve existing, Noah's Flood and all the miracles that have zero evidence to substantiate them.

The Bible is not History but a myth that was invented by humans, just the same as the rest of the world's holy books that came both before and after it.

**** dude, you started off with a theological question and I gave a theological answer. If you're looking to debate the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible this is neither the time or place.

Really, what did you hope to achieve here? Break another "sheeple" of his trance? Buddy, I've heard it all by now. And I've made my choice.

If you think you've heard it all and you've made your choice you're either easy to fool or you haven't heard it all. Adam and Eve did not exist. There was no global flood. There was no Jewish exodus. There was no miracle man that you need to worship.

People are very good at being fooled by things like religions because they want to believe. Religions that use 'faith' in them have been around a lot longer than the Israelites and have had millennia to fine tune their indoctrination techniques.

Ok man, whatever you say.

It must trouble you something awful that somebody can go through all the motions and not come out exactly like you.

But by all means continue your righteous crusade of knowledge across the ignorant masses.

Keep it up. Your doing God's Carl Sagan's work.

Well, the Iron Age is over, but despite how educated one can become in the West today, so many people still hold onto silly ideas about God and Jesus. It's much better living with reason than delusion.

Ok then. Thanks for that one bro.

Really, keep going. It's actually kind of funny watching you try this hard.

Did I try to convert you even once this entire conversation? No, because it's no consequence to me. And if it turns out I'm right, it really will be of no consequence.

Same goes for you, why do you care what I choose to believe?

Oh, I'm not trying.

It's amazing that people can believe in magic fairies when they are adults though, isn't it?

I don;t want to live in a world where people can use ancient myths to justify things in society. Like abortion and war. You know, things that we should use reason for instead of delusions about magical men.

Cool opinion, man.

I'm so glad that's worked out for you as well as it has.

To be honest, the history of the crusades is a very interesting tale of how Europe stopped fighting one another to focus on the real problem, those ********* that had been invading Europe for over 300 years and had even threatened the Vatican with destruction.

I'm not saying the crusades were all that good, hell after the 3rd the crusades were pretty much over. But they were in a sense justified and highly profitable in the long run for Europe. It's legit the reason why the Renaissance happened. So say what you want, but it worked out for the best.

Crusades were justified

Crusades were economic conflicts that used religion as a propaganda tool. Modern religious leaders are probably the most genuinely dedicated to faith in history.

uh
no.
Middle eastern empires were threatening the balance of europe

It "threatened" Europe by being better than it. The Ottoman Empire was on top for a while for a reason.

and that in turn challenged Christianity itself, for crusades were only done when the existence of the faith is on the line

I know your being sarcastic, but I'm just gonna say it anyways, there is no peaceful religion, everyone of them has reasons to kill people in them, people just cherry pick **** out or flat out ignore the fact that such things exist in their religion.

Taoism

Nah, we just set fire on everything and worship whatever slightly out of ordinary. Leave us out of it.

Never even heard of Jainism, that being said is it an actual religion, or is it actually a philosophy like the Buddhism is supposed to be, despite the fact people constantly call it a religion, I also in the same post I amended my statement to specifically theistic religions, that was post #11 to this image. From a quick look at information on Jainism, if it is a religion and not actually just a philosophy, it looks to be a non theistic religion.

That all being said, Christianity for example does say pretty much the same thing, maybe not to animals but to humans, its one of the ten commandments "Thou shalt not kill" of course in a few chapters or less the bible tells people to stone others for stupid **** , thus you get to see one of the many GLARING contradictions of the bible

Thou shalt not MURDER
The difference is the same in Hebrew

I can not really comment on Jainism, I do not have really any information on it and I don't particularly like talking one way or the other on things I know little about, that being said the whole thing about buddhism being a philosophy, if I remember things right, was supposed to be said by an actual incarnation of Buddha, something about not wanting the people to take things to a level of zealotry like the buddha had seen in religions. Either way, in order to clarify things i said earlier that I meant Theistic religions only, and from what i've read so far in a quick peek, Jainism looks more like the idea of 'inner god' or enlightenment/nirvana which if I'm right in that assertion then my statement does not apply to Jainism as it would then be Non-theistic.

Wicca is... difficult to actually categorize due to the many divergent sects. There are sects that yes they are theistic in nature, having the moon goddess and what not, and yes claim non violence, but as a whole I'm not quite sure you can call Wicca theistic or even a unified religion. I'm both willing and unwilling to agree that Wicca breaks my statement due to the fact that it is such a splintered belief system.

Actually, Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots of Hinduism.

Didn't Jesus Christ say "I will not come back with a hand, but with a sword"?

As JustintheWaysian has said, it isn't a sword in the literal sense.

A sword is a weapon that divides and severs. Jesus crucifixion washed the souls of man and created a natural divide between those who accept him and those who don't. A major point in the New Testament is that Christians will be persecuted, perhaps even by those in their own family or circle of friends. His Sacrifice gave greater form to the eternal struggle between good and evil, and increased the gap between the children of the devil and the children of God.

Remember in the garden of Gethsemane when Peter drew his sword against the soldiers of the Pharisees in Jesus' defense, Jesus asked him to sheath his weapon, because "all who draw the sword, will die by the sword" [Matthew 10:34-36]. Jesus was not advocating violence when He said he came to bring the sword; He was emphasizing the fact that though His death gives life, it marked the beginning of a division that would lead to much suffering and death (on the part of Christians) for His sake.

Context is everything.

A ******* sword hand how cool is that

And that was the wrong quote.

>>#70

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the Earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

can I just pretend jesus is gonna come back with a sword hand anyway

You could say similar things about Islam
Fact is, people will bend whatever religion to fit their views or correct cognitive dissonance

lol

same for jesus... he brought the sword. not peace and love.

You should read the book of Thomas. Was an excluded book from the original draft. There's some story about Jesus as a kid. He was bringing doves to life from mud sculptures and some kid squashed them so he shot the kid with lightning from his fingers. Pic related.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

And so on

so give me some context

Comments:

>>#292
>>#299

Right.. so he's coming back to annihilate any who will not serve.

Again- how is this not violent?

Is your reading comprehension this bad, or are you a troll? I just checked your profile and I'll have to land on the former. Come on man, it's like two paragraphs; it's not that freaking hard.

Still, I'll try again.
The 'sword' is a metaphor. If you'd read the NT, you'd know that for Jesus to advocate violence, or to suggest that He would return to "kill the nonbelievers", would be incredibly dichotomous and out of character.
To use the sword in this sense, He means to state that His actions are ones of dividing consequence. He didn't come to bring peace on this Earth, for the Earth will never be peaceful... that's not the point of our worldly existence. He came to save the souls of man, but to accept this salvation, one risks being persecuted, hated or stigmatized for one's faith.

Better?

And how do you get that context?

... because that's the actual teaching. That is literally the theological explanation and what catholic and protestant scholars alike have landed on, and what makes the most sense in the context of the chapter itself.

A quick google search:
www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html
www.holyspiritinteractive.net/youth/biblegeek/07.asp
carm.org/did-jesus-come-to-bring-peace-or-not
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=522028

He is talking about the severing of relationship that can't coexist with one's faith. The entire chapter revolves around this.

and what happens to those that are severed?

Nobody is "severed", dude. Relationships MAY be severed, and there WILL be suffering on one's own account as a Christian. Jesus was saying that by accepting him, you will not be freed of worldly burdens, but rather, they may be intensified.

According to Christian theology, God loves all of mankind, and yearns for his children to return to Him. That is the whole point of Jesus; the word of God became flesh, and through God's own sacrifice, the sin of man is washed away through His suffering.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16]

God doesn't cast anyone into hell, but if someone chooses not the accept the sacrifice of Christ, they cannot receive forgiveness for their transgressions, and thus cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven (an imperfect being cannot exist in a perfect environment).

That's what I'm trying to tell you. Nobody is 'severed', that just sounds morbid. It's a metaphor.

People are severed. With jesus acting as the "sword", people will be killed and suffering caused because of a world none of us created. If you choose to do things like- wear mixed fabric, boil a goat in it's mothers milk, and so on- you're one of those that will be severed.

Being severed- according to the christian bible, means you go to hell.

All of the things you're saying are just excuses taught to keep believing.

Let me make this clear; like completely, crystal freaking clear: everything you just said, literally everything, is completely wrong... and you simply refuse to read anything that I'm writing to you.

I'm actually spending time trying to convey actual theology to you. It stems from countless pages of literature, reflections and teachings of scholars, clerics and monks that have studied the word and its meanings for two thousand years; not my own opinions. It's what the entire foundation of the Church is built on; it's how it establishes its doctrines.
All of this knowledge has been inscribed over the ages, and is cataloged even online. Resources are readily available to assist one who wishes to learn, at least a little bit, about what the Christian faith is about.

And yet, you sit here, completely ignorant and full of your predisposed assumptions, commanding the astounding arrogance that allows you to insinuate that I'm a mindless sheep following "excuses" so that I have a reason to "believe". Damn dude, that's pretty sad.

This is why modern atheism is a bastion for middlebrow intellectualism. It enables you to assert your own intellectual superiority whilst simultaneously dismissing all those who don't conform to your narrow-minded perceptions of the world and the nature of the universe.

Even if I ceased to believe; if I were presented with undeniable and empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, I would still carry the Christian banner. Why? Because although I can't know truly if God exists (that's what faith is for), I can know what virtues and values Christianity aspires to, and how the quest of discovering who and what we are is made nobler in its context.
Then again, I realize you know nothing of this, and prefer to sit there, angry at the world and presumably need a scapegoat to blame your troubles on. This outlook isn't one that promotes growth and insight... as you would rather solidify your prejudices and misconceptions in order to give some form of satisfaction to yourself.

Godspeed to you, friend. You're going to need it.

If it makes you feel better about answering questions, look up 1 Peter 3:15

Also, I'm not angry at the world- nor unread on the christian faith. I never said anything about my intellect being greater- I said that you were following excuses to believe. You took it as an insult, while I acknowledge that everyone has excuses for something, I simply don't have excuses for having a faith.

Maybe I'm not phrasing it well- but you seem to feel attacked and I'm only asking questions to see your response, since you're answering.

I don't feel better than you and I know that there are many people out there who are religious that are much more intelligent than I am.

It's great that you have been raised as a "positive christian", where at least a of the ******** seems to be ignored and not talked about, or dismissed as "needing interpretation". But that's just it- how many times has it been interpenetrated, reworded, translated and so on? Many of those who study the "originals" come to a much darker conclusion about the faith than you present.

I simply disagree with the volume of dialog needed to translate a single sentence- where "turn the other cheek" was actually a phrase used to incite escalation, it is preached that it is about forgiveness or the appropriate meekness of a humble follower of jesus.

The entire religion makes no sense in it's own context- as it conflicts with itself many times. Even with the story of jesus's birth place.

What about all of the commandments. How many... 613?

These commandments include slavery, death penalties for apostasy, discrimination against women, discrimination against non-jewish (a good example is how some of the slavery laws differ for jew to non jew).

All of these things are included in the christian faith. How do you come to terms with following an ideology that encourages these things?

Unless I am mistaken, accord to the 'history' of Buddhism, it is not a real religion but rather a philosophy, but to clarify my statement a little more, there is no peaceful theistic religion that has survived and or flourished to present day( probably was at least a few throughout history but none have survived or have any real relevance in culture today.)

I believe Jainism, along with Sikhs, are nonviolent, and both are around today. Jainism has followers who wear filter masks to prevent from accidentally inhaling insects.