Trinity

[gaffo]

Any biblical reference for that theory please?

What part of - over a thousand years of WO/MAN writing stuff in books don't you understand? I am talking about talking to your God personally - first hand source, not buy-bull bible induced...as written by wo/man with all their prejudice and failings.

Thank you for your contribution. Have a nice day/ a good night.

lol, that all you can do sometimes.

you were civil, and you did not have to be, more credit your character (to carify Att was not uncivil either, not wish to imply so).

carry on............

[gaffo]

What part of - over a thousand years of WO/MAN writing stuff in books don't you understand? I am talking about talking to your God personally - first hand source, not buy-bull bible induced...as written by wo/man with all their prejudice and failings.

Thank you for your contribution. Have a nice day/ a good night.

sure..I don't think U R even worthy of my suffering for IT.

i may have spoken too soon aveross.

well hope springs eternal in this i think aveross was the more civil, and att got snippy for some reason, when he should have just returned the civility instead.

[gaffo]

Where did I state there are only 3 states of matter, note my mentioned of 'etc.' in my above statement.

You are stupid. You said:

If you had read the previous threads here you would have noted the common true principles of trinity in reality, i.e. the same H2O in water, steam and ice, etc.

The word "trinity" means "a group of three". What kind of stupid person are you to not know that "trinity" means three? Are you that lazy that you can't do your basic homework as opening a standard English dictionary? Yet again I have to spoon feed you with such basic knowledge.

trinity: A group of three people or things.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/trinity

As I had stated your arrogance that you are so smart in nitpicking this "omission" merely reflect your stupidity or that you are autistic.

Are you officially identified as 'autistic'?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30649
You seem to have a very weak 'Theory of Mind'.

Theory of mind refers to the ability to understand the desires, intentions and beliefs of others, and is a skill that develops between 3 and 5 years of age in typically developing children. This is test revision.

Relevance to autism:
Theory of mind is impaired in people with autism. One of the earliest tests for theory of mind is the false-belief test developed by Simon Baron-Cohen and Uta Frith1.
https://www.spectrumnews.org/wiki/theory-of-mind/

In addition, are you familiar with the Principle of Charity - re Philosophy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Read this up.

I believe your being converted to be a Muslim had made you into a zombie and everything is a threat to you thus your need to attack which is done stupidly.

Obviously if you read my posts here, I [& most] definitely understand 'Trinity' = in 3s.

The principle here is when an essence or fundamental can manifest in different forms, from 2 to an infinite number, surely it will be able to manifest in 3 different forms. This some basic intelligence to make that inference. It show, you are so stupid in not getting the point?

God in this case is not Absolutely-Absolute where the Trinity is concern in relation to the divine soul of the individual.
Obviously you are short-sighted in this point where you are focused on the individual as the empirical self rather than the soul as the innermost essence which is not the physical-empirical self.
God is also not Absolutely-Absolute in terms of God's creation, otherwise where is the link between God as his creations - the Universe and all else that is created by God.
Where God is Absolutely-Absolute and independent of his creations is with reference to the individual consciousness and ego of his creations and humans.

If you refer to the Hindu-Vedanta, Brahman is the Absolute, but not the Absolutely-Absolute thus co-exists with the Atman of the individual.

Hindu Vedanta, for example Advaita Vedanta among others, are among the means through which the Vedas were corrupted and such corruptions of the Vedas has led many Hindus nowadays to the point where they worship filthy animals such rats, monkeys, snakes and whatnot even though they are explicitely forbidden from doing so in the Vedas (Yajur Veda 40:9). And to my knowledge I know no Christian (as of yet) who worship these filthy animals.

Hindus worshipping rats: https://youtu.be/2OOs1l8Fajc
Hindus worshipping monkeys: https://youtu.be/5kxtruVHfWo

You are the stupid and ignorant one.
There are perhaps hundreds and even up to 1000+ types of religions and spiritual views within Hinduism ranging from [analogically] the Kindergarten to PhD levels.

Advaita Vedanta belongs to the PhD category of Hinduism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Unfortunately those at the lower levels of kindergarten and lower grades practice lower grades practices, i.e. worship rats, other weird stuff, etc.
However do not be too confident with those Muslims at the lower ends to also practice very weird practices and worst will kill non-Muslims as commanded by Allah.

Christianity has indeed been very badly corrupted but clearly not to the extent of Hinduism so far. So a Hindu Vedanta perspective is not applicable to Christianity.
And this is clear from the Christian Bible itself, where biblical Jesus said that by himself he can do nothing but he only seeks the will of the Father Who sent him.

• I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me. [John 5:30]

So in the Bible, God, the Absolute is independent of anything and everything depends on Him, even biblical Jesus completely depended on the Father according to John 5:30.
Clearly, according to John 5:30, biblical Jesus cannot be God. Biblical Jesus acknowledged that he was weak by himself in John 5:30 whereas God the Absolute is the Almighty.

PS: On the corruptions of the Vedas: Sanjay Dwivedi who was formerly a Hindu scholar who had memorised the Vedas and later converted to Islam, explains to us in the following video how the Vedas were corrupted over time: https://youtu.be/tDUpVwY8Q-E

While you condemned the corruption of Hinduism and Christianity,
note this;
Islam: There are holes in the narrative of the Quran
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30668
Do you have any counter to defend your Islam on the above?
This is evidence the Quran is corrupted since Muslims claimed the Quran in their possession are the perfect copy in verbatim from Allah.

There is no corruption is Hinduism and Christianity for these religions never claimed God sent a perfect holy book and is preserved verbatim from the words of God.
What is critical in these religions are the divine principles, e.g. the maxim of 'love all, even enemies' is a positive divine principles.

In Hinduism there is a range of spirituality available from kindergarten to PhD [analogically] because Hinduism understood the reality that there are a wide range of spiritual competence amongst the millions of humans.
Thus the individual[s] will gravitate toward the spiritual doctrines and practices that are optimal to his current spiritual state with the proviso that he will continually progress from his current spiritual state to higher spiritual states.

Sanjay Dwivedi is likely to be desperate as driven by the inherent existential crisis.
It is very common for believers to convert out and into another religion, thus for various reasons there are Hindus who convert to Islam, and Muslims who convert to Hinduism.
However it is very unfortunate for those who convert into Islam where they could potentially turn into a zombie like you and potentially be a jihadist who will turn to kill non-Muslims as a duty to please Allah. This is so self-evident with some many who converted into Islam and are caught or known to be killers.

But I have not heard anyone who converted into Christianity, Hinduism, and other religions and end up killing others and themselves.
You need to wake up to understand why it is only those who convert into Islam become killers of non-Muslims??

since you seem to know of Eastern Religions (Jainism/Hinduism/Buddism) - which this forum is lacking, i'd welcome your views of the 7? encarnations of God (I know by name only 2 of the seven - Rama and Krisha).................I'm a hellbound Atheist, but have interest in religions (i lack knowledge in the Eastern ones, but know more than most Believers - from Christians to Jews and Muslims - though know more of Judiasm, and a little less of Islam/Christianity - read all those books decades ago - well most of.....my personality conforms more to Judaism (Recipocity) - i do not love those the hate me, so no christian mentally.

again, if you can inform me and this forum about the Eastern Hindu's theology of the seven? incarnations of "God", i'd love to read/learn via your reply.

[Veritas Aequitas]

since you seem to know of Eastern Religions (Jainism/Hinduism/Buddism) - which this forum is lacking, i'd welcome your views of the 7? encarnations of God (I know by name only 2 of the seven - Rama and Krisha).................I'm a hellbound Atheist, but have interest in religions (i lack knowledge in the Eastern ones, but know more than most Believers - from Christians to Jews and Muslims - though know more of Judiasm, and a little less of Islam/Christianity - read all those books decades ago - well most of.....my personality conforms more to Judaism (Recipocity) - i do not love those the hate me, so no christian mentally.

again, if you can inform me and this forum about the Eastern Hindu's theology of the seven? incarnations of "God", i'd love to read/learn via your reply.

I am not interested on discussion the "seven? incarnations of 'God' " which is going off topic. Note,

• Re Trinity is Hinduism
  The most well known Hindu Trinity (trimurti) is Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva as Judge. The impersonal Brahman of the Upanishads represents the Godhead in this view.
  No Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One, just as no Greek ever worshiped Aristotle’s unmoved mover. (In fact, Shankara, the Hindu father of absolute monism, was a devout Shaivite and wrote wonderful hymns to his personal Lord Shiva.) The theological basis of Hindu personal theism is the Purusha hymn of the Rig-Veda (10.90) and trinitarian formulations of this personal Godhead developed in both the religions of Shiva (Shavism) and the religion of Vishnu (Vaishnavism).
  
  Hindus who follow Shiva worship him as Creator, Preserver, and Judge, and timeless interpenetration of these three modes of existence is roughly equivalent to the perichoresis of the Christian Trinity.

"No Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One.." because this is like starring at the Sun [most powerful physical thing] all day. This is why the majority comprising a wide range of spiritual maturity direct their attention of the Trinity, incarnations and manifestations [idols] of the all powerful [they are aware of] which they can effectively connect with and benefit from.

That is the problem and disadvantage with Islam where everyone is forced to stare at the Sun [one and only Allah] every moment which is a torture to most Muslims and leading to so many Muslims committing terrible evil acts upon non-Muslims.

If you are a non-theist [atheist], Buddhism-proper [no God involved] would be more relevant to you. Buddhism-proper focus on how to increase one's well being and be a better person in alignment with the well-being of humanity.
There are many forms of Buddhism but the more advanced Buddhism, which is more effective, is AT PRESENT a bit too ahead for the majority of people.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

[Averroes]

As I had stated your arrogance that you are so smart in nitpicking this "omission" merely reflect your stupidity or that you are autistic.

You have just realized how stupid and ignorant you are. That's a good thing done. We are getting somewhere so let's move on.

In addition, are you familiar with the Principle of Charity - re Philosophy

You are so lazy and on top of that you have no shame to beg me for charity on a philosophy forum! Do your own research you lazy parasite. Buddhism has too much accustomed you to being a lazy beggar like it's founder.

I believe your being converted to be a Muslim had made you into a zombie and everything is a threat to you thus your need to attack which is done stupidly.

As you are witnessing, your stupidity does not threaten anyone but yourself.

Do you have any counter to defend your Islam on the above?

Of course. This thread is on Trinity and not Islam. In Islam there is no trinity. But answer my question: why are you so stupid? Were you born like that or you later became like that? I am genuinely asking. I want to know.

There is no corruption is Hinduism and Christianity for these religions never claimed God sent a perfect holy book and is preserved verbatim from the words of God.

Again why are you so stupid and ignorant? Even the Bible itself acknowledges that it is corrupted! Jeremiah 8:8 reads as follows:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.[Jeremiah 8:8]

What is critical in these religions are the divine principles, e.g. the maxim of 'love all, even enemies' is a positive divine principles.

What is critical is your stupidity and ignorance. In the Bible, it is reported that biblical Jesus said:

• “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

• 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.'(Luke 19:27)

That's the "loving" in Christianity. Keep all your "Christian love" for yourselves.

But I have not heard anyone who converted into Christianity, Hinduism, and other religions and end up killing others and themselves.

That's because you are too stupid, ignorant and a lazy parasite.

Christianity has so many examples that it would require a thread by itself to just touch on the subject! Let's take a well known example, namely Constantine.

1. Constantine.

Constantine is said to be the first Roman Emperor who embraced Christianity. You are so stupid and ignorant that yet again I have to spoon feed your lazy and ignorant mind. My patience is wearing thin with your stupidity.

Church historian Eusebius documents in his work that Constantine had a vision of a flaming cross, bearing the inscription In hoc signo vinces—“By this sign conquer”—and there and then converted to Christianity in exchange for victory in the battle of Milvian Bridge against Maxentius. There are also other historians of Christianity who documented this. The sign that Constantine saw in his vision (and later in his dream) was a Chi Rho cross, which meant "Christ" in their mind. He is said to have then ordered his troops to put this sign on their battle gear and then they went to fight Maxentius in a bloody battle in the year 312. A contemporary historian Peter Brown writes in his book The Rise of Western Christendom on page 61, the following about Constantine's conversion to Christianity and the blood bath that ensued:

• Yet,  only nine years after Diocletian had erected his monument,  the emperor Constantine entered Rome on October 29,  312,  having defeated his rival, Maxentius,  on the previous day,  at a battle near the Milvian Bridge,  outside the city.  The altars of the gods stood ready,  on the Capitol,  to receive the sacrifice  appropriate  to the celebration  of his victorious entry  into the city. But  Constantine, apparently, went straight to the  imperial palace without performing any sacrifice.  At the time, Constantine’s oversight might not have been interpreted as a breach with the old religion. A ruthless politician, his first step was to eclipse the memory of Maxentius. He did this by filling the traditional center of the city with monuments which were totally intelligible to old-fashioned Romans (such as the triumphal arch,  the  Arch of Constantine,  which  still  stands  opposite  the  Colosseum  on  the  road  that  led to the Forum).  These monuments contained no reference to Christianity.15
  
  At the same  time, however, Constantine let it be known to Christians that he considered that he had owed his victory outside Rome to a specific  and unique sign from the One God which they worshipped. Writing to Christians, he made plain,  in  subsequent years, that he owed his  successes to the protection of that High God alone. Over a decade later (at some time after 324) he wrote to the young king of Persia,  Shapur II:  “Him I call upon with bended knee, shunning all abominable blood and hateful odors [of pagan sacrifice].”16
  
  Constantine’s  “conversion” was a very “Roman”  conversion. It consisted in the fact that he had come to regard the High God of the Christians,  rather than the traditional gods, as the proper recipient of religio.  Worship of the Christian God had brought prosperity upon himself and would bring prosperity upon the empire. He had risen to power in a series of murderous civil wars which destroyed the system of divided empire developed by Diocletian.  He occupied Rome in 312.  But this did not give him the total power he wanted.  Only 12 years later,  in 324,  did he take over the eastern half of the empire in a series  of  bloody battles. And  he did  all this without attributing his success in any way to correct  religio  toward the ancient gods. It was in this pointed absence of piety toward the gods, as the traditional guardians of the empire,  that his subjects came to realize that their emperor was a Christian.

After the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine made public his conversion to Christianity after the Edict of Milan. After that he would engage in many more bloody battles (eg the Battle of Chrysopolis against Licinius) against the pagans of his former religion and thus force, by arms and laws, Christianity on the then pagan Romans. After his death, his Christian sons Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans I continued in their father's footsteps by engaging in more bloodshed to impose the domination of Christianity on the pagan Romans of their time. An interesting fact: when the sons of Constantine inherited the empire after their father's death,  they slaughtered many members of their own family to ensure that their reign would not be opposed! When that done,  Constans I ambushed his brother Constantine II and got him killed in 340 in order to have his share of the empire! Now you can stop being a lazy parasite and do your own research work to learn more about the bloody history of Christianity instead of constantly begging and parasiting me.
Further reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan ... ristianity

As we are at it, let's also touch upon Martin Luther who was the founder of Protestantism.

2. Martin Luther

As soon as Luther had finished writting his Ninety-five Theses in 1517, war broke out across Europe between those who had embraced his new theology and those who supported the Catholic Church. These wars lasted for centuries. Among the first wars that broke out was the Peasant Wars in Germany and Austria in 1524 where peasants who had just embraced Protestantism revolted against the nobles and another bloodbath ensued. Do your homework now. Look also into the Wikipedia entry of Luther and imprint on your mind his violence towards others who doesn't share his beliefs.
Wikipedia:

• In two of his later works, Luther expressed antagonistic, violent views towards Jews and called for the burnings of their synagogues and their deaths.[10] His rhetoric was not directed at Jews alone but also towards Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and nontrinitarian Christians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

That's why many Protestants have been and are still so violent in their discourses and actions. They follow an angry and violent man. More on that later, God willing.
Recommended reading:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther


3. Ram Godse joined the Hindu Terrorist organization RSS  in 1932,  and in 1948 he shot Gandhi three times in the Chest.
_____________________

As you begged me for some philosophical charity, here it is:

Charity: Check also the life of a woman named Hypatia. She was a mathematician, philosopher,  scientist and astronomer. She was not a Christian. She was killed by a mob of Christians because they thought she was doing magic as they didn't understand that it was science! Christianity has a long history of being antagonist to science. They didn't even hesitate to sentence their own to death for doing science, namely Galileo. Anyway, read Hypatia's story on Wikipedia, it's very interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Wikipedia on her death:

• According to Socrates Scholasticus, during the Christian season of Lent in March 415, a mob of Christians under the leadership of a lector named Peter, raided Hypatia's carriage as she was travelling home. They dragged her into a building known as the Kaisarion, a former pagan temple and center of the Roman imperial cult in Alexandria that had been converted into a Christian church. There, the mob stripped Hypatia naked and murdered her using ostraka, which can either be translated as "roof tiles" or "oyster shells". Damascius adds that they also cut out her eyeballs. They tore her body into pieces and dragged her mangled limbs through the town to a place called Cinarion, where they set them on fire. According to Watts, this was in line with the traditional manner in which Alexandrians carried the bodies of the "vilest criminals" outside the city limits to cremate them as a way of symbolically purifying the city.

And there are many many more examples. May be later,  God willing, I will add more if you still prove to be lazy and if I can muster enough patience to face your stupidity and ignorance. But anyway if you wear out my patience, then I have a discussion on wars with Immanuel Can coming up, God willing, as he had requested for it sometime ago. If that goes through, then may be I'll get an opportunity to discuss more on that God willing. This is a very interesting subject.
That's enough spoon feeding for now. Do your homework now.

[Scott Mayers]

My gut feeling is that if modern society opened to understanding what the Triad known in Christianity as the Trinity, the division between science and religion would disappear.

Modern society relies on reason governed by duality: affirmation and denial. Dis is here and dat is dare and the rest is nonsense. The law of non contradiction is the ultimate path to understanding. Yet there are those who wonder why the trinity or union of three forces is so easily accepted in ancient philosophy. Why three? Why not two and leave it alone? Here are how several, including Christianity, of the ancient traditions visualize three forces. Is the dis is here and dat is dare philosophy used by science missing something important?

What is the origin of this deep appeciation for three forces

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/trinit ... -religions

'Spiral of Life' represents:

- Unity of body, mind and spirit.

- Interplay of birth, growth, and death

It is a symbolic representation of primordial forces that materialize in magical, mysterious fashion while obeying precise universal laws. The Tree of Life starts with a triad.

From this primordial triangle proceed all of the other figures, shapes, forms, all other numbers, the magic of manifestation.

If you look at the evolution of logic, especially of the time of the Christian 'Trinity', this concept makes sense. The fact that most could not follow logic in the depths of the thinkers back then left many to believe in 'coding' the understanding with a duality FOR the religious who could not understand without a great deal of investment.

I was arguing with Speakpigeon about the etymology of the term, "contradiction" itself as coming from a neutral meaning, "with at least a third option" to presumed binary possibilities. I was thinking about mentioning the Trinity as an example but felt that this would require a digression I wasn't caring to take on.

[attofishpi]

Thank you for your contribution. Have a nice day/ a good night.

sure..I don't think U R even worthy of my suffering for IT.

i may have spoken too soon aveross.

well hope springs eternal in this i think aveross was the more civil, and att got snippy for some reason, when he should have just returned the civility instead.

I'll reserve my right to be 'snippy', when I have answered his request re "Trinity" and he insists that he be garnered from the buy_bull..not from direct gnosis with the Supreme Being. (from whom I suffered greatly)

As in:-
Trinity?

God formed its own intelligence from chaos...hence why infinite regress is stifled.

..as it formed, from great suffering, it created a reality that life could evolve within, indeed eventually wo/man were designed.

God eventually saw a point in time where HE would grow as a human among men...and ensure that there is a REASON for his suffering mentally and physically...HE grew as CHRIST.

SO. Back to the Trinity - a trivial matter in consideration of such a degree of suffering on all accounts.

GOD - formed as a MAN - and created a COLD LOGIC system - THE HOLY SPIRIT.

GOD - CHRIST - HOLY SPIRIT (basically Gods technology - akin to A.I. that manifests ALL Matter)

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated your arrogance that you are so smart in nitpicking this "omission" merely reflect your stupidity or that you are autistic.

You have just realized how stupid and ignorant you are. That's a good thing done. We are getting somewhere so let's move on.

In addition, are you familiar with the Principle of Charity - re Philosophy

You are so lazy and on top of that you have no shame to beg me for charity on a philosophy forum! Do your own research you lazy parasite. Buddhism has too much accustomed you to being a lazy beggar like it's founder.

I believe your being converted to be a Muslim had made you into a zombie and everything is a threat to you thus your need to attack which is done stupidly.

As you are witnessing, your stupidity does not threaten anyone but yourself.

Do you have any counter to defend your Islam on the above?

Of course. This thread is on Trinity and not Islam. In Islam there is no trinity. But answer my question: why are you so stupid? Were you born like that or you later became like that? I am genuinely asking. I want to know.

There is no corruption is Hinduism and Christianity for these religions never claimed God sent a perfect holy book and is preserved verbatim from the words of God.

Again why are you so stupid and ignorant? Even the Bible itself acknowledges that it is corrupted! Jeremiah 8:8 reads as follows:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.[Jeremiah 8:8]

You are stupid to realize, in your case, whenever you accuse me of stupidity, that is because you are inherently and evidently stupid.

Note the point with corruption by the Jews and Christians as claimed by Allah is that they have changed the original to their present copy of the holy texts, thus corrupted and not perfect.
While Allah in the Quran and Muslims of present claimed, the Quran they have on hand is the perfect copy [verbatim] of what is revealed to Muhammad. i.e. is perfect and not corrupted.

The Christians never claimed their Gospel is perfect and not corrupted. However what they depend on is coherence, cross-referencing and context of divine principles.

Re Jeremiah 8:8 here is the counter from Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlfeG4kjYk

What is critical in these religions are the divine principles, e.g. the maxim of 'love all, even enemies' is a positive divine principles.

What is critical is your stupidity and ignorance. In the Bible, it is reported that biblical Jesus said:

• “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

• 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.'(Luke 19:27)

That's the "loving" in Christianity. Keep all your "Christian love" for yourselves.

But I have not heard anyone who converted into Christianity, Hinduism, and other religions and end up killing others and themselves.

That's because you are too stupid, ignorant and a lazy parasite.

Christianity has so many examples that it would require a thread by itself to just touch on the subject! Let's take a well known example, namely Constantine.

1. Constantine.

Constantine is said to be the first Roman Emperor who embraced Christianity. You are so stupid and ignorant that yet again I have to spoon feed your lazy and ignorant mind. My patience is wearing thin with your stupidity.

Church historian Eusebius documents in his work that Constantine had a vision of a flaming cross, bearing the inscription In hoc signo vinces—“By this sign conquer”—and there and then converted to Christianity in exchange for victory in the battle of Milvian Bridge against Maxentius. There are also other historians of Christianity who documented this. The sign that Constantine saw in his vision (and later in his dream) was a Chi Rho cross, which meant "Christ" in their mind. He is said to have then ordered his troops to put this sign on their battle gear and then they went to fight Maxentius in a bloody battle in the year 312. A contemporary historian Peter Brown writes in his book The Rise of Western Christendom on page 61, the following about Constantine's conversion to Christianity and the blood bath that ensued:

• Yet,  only nine years after Diocletian had erected his monument,  the emperor Constantine entered Rome on October 29,  312,  having defeated his rival, Maxentius,  on the previous day,  at a battle near the Milvian Bridge,  outside the city.  The altars of the gods stood ready,  on the Capitol,  to receive the sacrifice  appropriate  to the celebration  of his victorious entry  into the city. But  Constantine, apparently, went straight to the  imperial palace without performing any sacrifice.  At the time, Constantine’s oversight might not have been interpreted as a breach with the old religion. A ruthless politician, his first step was to eclipse the memory of Maxentius. He did this by filling the traditional center of the city with monuments which were totally intelligible to old-fashioned Romans (such as the triumphal arch,  the  Arch of Constantine,  which  still  stands  opposite  the  Colosseum  on  the  road  that  led to the Forum).  These monuments contained no reference to Christianity.15
  
  At the same  time, however, Constantine let it be known to Christians that he considered that he had owed his victory outside Rome to a specific  and unique sign from the One God which they worshipped. Writing to Christians, he made plain,  in  subsequent years, that he owed his  successes to the protection of that High God alone. Over a decade later (at some time after 324) he wrote to the young king of Persia,  Shapur II:  “Him I call upon with bended knee, shunning all abominable blood and hateful odors [of pagan sacrifice].”16
  
  Constantine’s  “conversion” was a very “Roman”  conversion. It consisted in the fact that he had come to regard the High God of the Christians,  rather than the traditional gods, as the proper recipient of religio.  Worship of the Christian God had brought prosperity upon himself and would bring prosperity upon the empire. He had risen to power in a series of murderous civil wars which destroyed the system of divided empire developed by Diocletian.  He occupied Rome in 312.  But this did not give him the total power he wanted.  Only 12 years later,  in 324,  did he take over the eastern half of the empire in a series  of  bloody battles. And  he did  all this without attributing his success in any way to correct  religio  toward the ancient gods. It was in this pointed absence of piety toward the gods, as the traditional guardians of the empire,  that his subjects came to realize that their emperor was a Christian.

After the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine made public his conversion to Christianity after the Edict of Milan. After that he would engage in many more bloody battles (eg the Battle of Chrysopolis against Licinius) against the pagans of his former religion and thus force, by arms and laws, Christianity on the then pagan Romans. After his death, his Christian sons Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans I continued in their father's footsteps by engaging in more bloodshed to impose the domination of Christianity on the pagan Romans of their time. An interesting fact: when the sons of Constantine inherited the empire after their father's death,  they slaughtered many members of their own family to ensure that their reign would not be opposed! When that done,  Constans I ambushed his brother Constantine II and got him killed in 340 in order to have his share of the empire! Now you can stop being a lazy parasite and do your own research work to learn more about the bloody history of Christianity instead of constantly begging and parasiting me.
Further reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan ... ristianity

As we are at it, let's also touch upon Martin Luther who was the founder of Protestantism.

2. Martin Luther

As soon as Luther had finished writting his Ninety-five Theses in 1517, war broke out across Europe between those who had embraced his new theology and those who supported the Catholic Church. These wars lasted for centuries. Among the first wars that broke out was the Peasant Wars in Germany and Austria in 1524 where peasants who had just embraced Protestantism revolted against the nobles and another bloodbath ensued. Do your homework now. Look also into the Wikipedia entry of Luther and imprint on your mind his violence towards others who doesn't share his beliefs.
Wikipedia:

• In two of his later works, Luther expressed antagonistic, violent views towards Jews and called for the burnings of their synagogues and their deaths.[10] His rhetoric was not directed at Jews alone but also towards Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and nontrinitarian Christians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

That's why many Protestants have been and are still so violent in their discourses and actions. They follow an angry and violent man. More on that later, God willing.
Recommended reading:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther


3. Ram Godse joined the Hindu Terrorist organization RSS  in 1932,  and in 1948 he shot Gandhi three times in the Chest.
_____________________

As you begged me for some philosophical charity, here it is:

Charity: Check also the life of a woman named Hypatia. She was a mathematician, philosopher,  scientist and astronomer. She was not a Christian. She was killed by a mob of Christians because they thought she was doing magic as they didn't understand that it was science! Christianity has a long history of being antagonist to science. They didn't even hesitate to sentence their own to death for doing science, namely Galileo. Anyway, read Hypatia's story on Wikipedia, it's very interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Wikipedia on her death:

• According to Socrates Scholasticus, during the Christian season of Lent in March 415, a mob of Christians under the leadership of a lector named Peter, raided Hypatia's carriage as she was travelling home. They dragged her into a building known as the Kaisarion, a former pagan temple and center of the Roman imperial cult in Alexandria that had been converted into a Christian church. There, the mob stripped Hypatia naked and murdered her using ostraka, which can either be translated as "roof tiles" or "oyster shells". Damascius adds that they also cut out her eyeballs. They tore her body into pieces and dragged her mangled limbs through the town to a place called Cinarion, where they set them on fire. According to Watts, this was in line with the traditional manner in which Alexandrians carried the bodies of the "vilest criminals" outside the city limits to cremate them as a way of symbolically purifying the city.

And there are many many more examples. May be later,  God willing, I will add more if you still prove to be lazy and if I can muster enough patience to face your stupidity and ignorance. But anyway if you wear out my patience, then I have a discussion on wars with Immanuel Can coming up, God willing, as he had requested for it sometime ago. If that goes through, then may be I'll get an opportunity to discuss more on that God willing. This is a very interesting subject.
That's enough spoon feeding for now. Do your homework now.

Re Luke 19:27
Here is the counter Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJmd3KrGeYE&t=3s

Btw, I have read and listen to all the claims by Muslims against Christianity on points of corruption, trinity, & others, and in all cases, the likes of Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun and other Christians had provided very sound counters to all the accusations.

I am not an expert with Christianity. [... I am an expert with Islam and Quran]. Before you throw any counters re Christianity and the Gospel, check the internet, Youtube and elsewhere to make sure there are no solid counters from the experts of Christianity which I will end up referring to.

I have no doubts there are Christians who killed other humans and even killing other Christians.
But there is no way, these Christians who killed other humans are compelled by any commands [contractual terms] in the Gospels [not OT btw].
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687
Christians who killed did it on their personal basis that has nothing to do with their obligation within their contract with Jesus/God.
Logically, those Christians who had killed will likely be punished on Judgment Day unless they have good reasons [e.g. for the greater good] to be forgiven or punished lightly for their sins.

On the other hand a Muslim as contracted [covenanted] with Allah is obligated and compelled to kill non-Muslim where there are any threats [even the slightest] to the religion of Islam. [Q5:33 where non-belief in Islam is a fasadin].

In a way you as a Muslim [& any other] is a potential contracted-killer and if you kill non-Muslims there is NO moral issue for you since you will be highly rewarded with eternal life and 72 virgins in paradise.

At present you may be able to resist Allah's command in Q5:33 but the short-circuiting in the brain-of-anyone to kill humans can happen anytime when triggered by stress, rage and other emotional issues. If that happened to you, you can kill non-Muslims without guilt, conscience nor with any moral compass.

Btw, you as a Muslim is not complying with Q5:33 [and other related verses] and disobeying Allah if you do not kill non-Muslims who posed a threat [fasadin] to Islam, i.e. those who critique Islam heavily, blasphemy against Islam/Muhammad, occupying Muslims' land, drawing cartoons of Muhammad, etc. Do you agree with this point?

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Btw, you as a Muslim is not complying with Q5:33 [and other related verses] and disobeying Allah if you do not kill non-Muslims who posed a threat [fasadin] to Islam, i.e. those who critique Islam heavily, blasphemy against Islam/Muhammad, occupying Muslims' land, drawing cartoons of Muhammad, etc. Do you agree with this point?

Most non-Muslims' personal experience of Muslims is they are peaceful, hard working, good neighbours, rather conventional people who don't harm others and want to bring up their children and care for their wounded and elderly like most other normal people.

There are a few religionists who become 'radicalised' meaning they pick up on some bit of text that supports their aggressive feelings. The internet has facilitated people's being 'radicalised'.

I personally am Islamophobic to such an extent that I would not make fun of Muhammad , simply because I fear reprisals. This is perhaps insulting to peaceful law- abiding Muslims I know, but I cannot help being prejudiced. The main reason for my prejudice is that Muslims I see seem to form a closed sub -culture within the larger society. I have never made a personal friend of a Muslim, while I have had dear friends who were Catholics. Do Muslims fear separation from their ethnic past, perhaps in Pakistan where there are punishments for blasphemy?

I had neighbours until last week, who were Muslims, and who were well regarded in the neighbourhood.

[attofishpi]

I personally am Islamophobic to such an extent that I would not make fun of Muhammad , simply because I fear reprisals.

I tend to think a phobia is an irrational fear, you seem quite reasonable to me and have a rational fear of adherents to some of the disgusting doctrine within that book.

[Averroes]

The Christians never claimed their Gospel is perfect and not corrupted.

That's not true. You are stupid and ignorant.  One must be able to differentiate between lay Christians and knowledgeable Christians. Of the two categories, only the knowledgeable Christians acknowledge that the Gospels (and the OT as well) are currupted and contain errors. For example, the Vatican did acknowledge that not so long ago. But the overwhelming majority of lay Christians have been taught up until the 1950s at least that the Gospels (and Bible in general) are error free and perfect. Many nowadays are shocked when the contradictions in the Bible are shown to them. Not so long ago, I was conversing with a Protestant Christian on the forum and I casually happened to tell him of the many contradictions in his book,  thinking that he already knew about it. I was astonished by his refusal to accept such a now well known fact. It seemed to me that he didn't know of the many errors and contradictions in his book. He was clearly an ignorant Christian but like him there are many.

______________

Re Jeremiah 8:8 here is the counter from Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;

I watched that. These people are clowns. They have not presented any argument; Trinitarian Christians are very bad at logic; I recently witnessed that on the forum itself. That is because the moment someone embraces the Trinity, it's bye bye logic for them until they realize that they have been fooled and reject it.

The following is an argument that conclusively settles the matter. It's obvious that one cannot both, on the one hand, accept that the Bible is corrupted (as Christians scholars do) and on the other hand counter Jeremiah 8:8, which is saying the Jewish scriptures are corrupted! I am not surprised though that you didn't see that contradiction as we all now know you are stupid. Anyway, I now will present the evidence from true Bible scholars on Jeremiah 8:8.

There is a scholarly book which is a collection of academic papers of around 18 recognized Bible scholars (most of them Christians) which addresses the corruption of the Jewish scriptures: Changes in Scripture, Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila.

Knowledge of Hebrew is recommended for one to be able to read all the chapters of the book as the numerous examples of corruption shown in the book are in Hebrew, the original language.

An excerpt from a chapter of the book written by biblical scholar John J Collins  on Jeremiah 8:8 on page 23:

• “How can you say,  ‘We are  wise,  and  the law  of  the Lord  is  with  us,’ when,  in  fact,  the false  pen of  the scribes  has  made it  into  a lie”  (Jer  8:8)
  
  We do  not  know  precisely  what Jeremiah had in mind  in his scathing denunciation  of  scribal  activity  on  the  Torah.  Many  scholars  think  that the  prophet  was opposed  to any written Torah.1  He  was  certainly  concerned  that  the  authority  of  the  prophet to  speak  for God  was being usurped by  the scribes,  as  indeed  it  was.  But it  is also established beyond  doubt  that  scribes frequently changed  the supposedly  revealed texts that they  transmitted. Ironically,  the book of  Jeremiah is itself a prime  example of scribal composition,  where  the  original oracles of the prophet are  now  overshadowed  by  the  accretions, often ideological, of scribal transmission.2  Of   course,  Jeremiah’s   judgment  on  such  accretions  reflects a particular perspective,  which  is not  inevitable. Religious traditions  sometimes  value  the  contributions  of  the  editors,  who  gave the  material its  canonical shape,  more than  those of the prophets.  It  is often  assumed that these editors were attempting  to preserve and  explicate  the  true   meaning  of  their  sources,  and  undoubtedly  this  was often so.  But  Jeremiah’s outburst  should  warn  us  that a  “hermeneutic  of suspicion”  towards  the ideological  underpinnings of scribal  activity  is not  entirely  anachronistic.  Claims  to  speak  with  divine  authority  were especially fraught  with  implications  for power in ancient society,  and were inevitably, and  properly,  contested.

_______________

Re Luke 19:27
Here is the counter Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;

I watched the David Wood monologue till the end. And he is in fact saying that biblical Jesus did indeed refer to himself in the verse Luke 19:27! This is how stupid some people can be; in trying to refute Luke 19:27, they ended confirming their belief in it!
And don't forget Luke 14:26,  where biblical Jesus is clearly commanding hate towards family and community members:

• “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

As you entertained me with that video, I too will like to do the same for you, God willing. The following YT link will no doubt not fail to entertain you as well: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus

______________

I am not an expert with Christianity. [... I am an expert with Islam and Quran].

It's good that you acknowledge that you are ignorant on Christianity and indeed you are. Stop fooling yourself about being an expert on Islam. I exchanged with you numerous times on the forum before, and you are very far from being an expert on anything. Each time I tell you that you are ignorant and stupid. In saying that I am not trying to be mean to you. I tell you that because you really are stupid and ignorant. And I tell you that so that you get opportunities to realize the truth about yourself and not keep fooling yourself like that. Most other members just ignore you(and I don't blame them), while I, on the other hand, take the time to educate you for free when I get the patience and the time. However, I know you, as a Buddhist, have grown accustomed to taking charity to the point that you now think that it's us who owe you something!

____________

Before you throw any counters re Christianity and the Gospel, check the internet, Youtube and elsewhere to make sure there are no solid counters from the experts of Christianity which I will end up referring to.

Stop taking the lazy way each time as your religious founder. Be prepared to do the legwork when you discuss with me. By the way, why are you so lazy?  Buddhism has corrupted you to that degree? It's so disgraceful to be so lazy.
_____________

Christians who killed did it on their personal basis that has nothing to do with their obligation within their contract with Jesus/God.

I don't think those countless pagans(aka polytheists) who were killed by Constantine and all those Christian rulers after him, would agree. Galileo was sentenced to death by the Church itself just for proving scientifically that the Bible was wrong. You already acknowledged your ignorance, but you still have to acknowledge your stupidity. You know you are stupid, don't you? Go and do your research and see the fate of Christian heretics throughout history. Start with a sample of the list of person burned as Christian heretics (both Protestants and Catholics included) on Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... s_heretics
______________

In a way you as a Muslim [& any other] is a potential contracted-killer and if you kill non-Muslims there is NO moral issue for you since you will be highly rewarded with eternal life and 72 virgins in paradise.

As a Muslim, I am commanded by God, the Almighty to be kind and just to everyone who does not fight me in religion and who does not expel me from my land and my home. The "72 virgins in paradise" is not mentioned in the Holy Quran.

In Buddhism, however, according to Buddhist scriptures it is commanded to kill people who have mocked the religion. For example in the Nirvana sutra it is said:

• In just the same way, the Bodhisattva-mahasattva acts likewise for reasons of protecting Wonderful Dharma. Should beings slander Mahayana, he applies kindly lashings, in order to cure them. Or he may take life in order that what obtained in the past could be mended, thus seeing to it that the law [Dharma] could be accorded with. The Bodhisattva always thinks: "How might I best make beings aspire to faith? I shall always act as is best fitted to the occasion."[Nirvana Sutra]

You as a Buddhist are now in an obligation under pervert Sidhartha's commands to kill me as I am telling the truth here and elsewhere that Buddhism is horrible and despicable. Can you resist obeying the lazy parasite who was Sidhartha?

What is also clear, moreover, is that in Buddhism, sex orgies with many young virgin girls have been prescribed by pervert Sidhartha as a way to Enlightenment! As Siddhartha said to Ananda:

• “Ananda, do not conceive of a holy person, someone practicing the Greater Vehicle correctly, as being faulty. Ananda, this is how you should understand it: A person of the vehicle of the auditors, in order to be absolutely peerless in maintaining meditative calm, will seek uninterruptedly to exhaust the outflows. In the same way, Ananda, the Bodhisattva great hero who is skilled in means, who is endowed with the thought of omniscience, will seek uninterruptedly for omniscience, even to the point of abiding among a holy retinue of women and enjoying, playing with, and taking pleasure in it. [The Skill in Means (Upayakausalya) Sutra]

In the 20th century there have been many detailed testimonies from young western women whose virginity were preyed by Buddhist monks in Tibet "strictly" complying with the perversion of Sidhartha. What is more disgusting is that these Tibetan monks were after the vaginal fluids of these virgin girls (known as darkinis); these vaginal fluids they would drink and collect for their followers after their sexual orgies. You as a Buddhist must have been given such vaginal fluids to drink. Anyway, I addressed all this in greater detail on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=25127


Virgins are highly valued in the Bible as well.

• 13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.”[Leviticus 21:13-15]

• 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.[Deuteronomy 22:20-21]

And still according to the Bible, biblical Solomon loved many foreign women and it is said in the Bible that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.(see 1 Kings 11:1-3)

As for Hinduism, let us just mention that Krishna had 16,108 wives. For now, we won't need to go into tantra or kamasutra to describe the style!

You are so stupid, ignorant and lazy that each time I have to spoon feed you like that. You haven't answered my previous question though: why are you so stupid and ignorant? Were you born like that or is it later that you acquired your stupidity?

[Belinda]

Averroes wrote:

As a Muslim, I am commanded by God, the Almighty to be kind and just to everyone who does not fight me in religion and who does not expel me from my land and my home. The "72 virgins in paradise" is not mentioned in the Holy Quran.

Have you any idea how daft you sound? I mean, that the Almighty took the trouble to command a wee man like you when He has the whole of creation to take care of including Xians , Muslims, polytheists, dogs, cats, and other sinners.

[seeds]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Christians never claimed their Gospel is perfect and not corrupted.

That's not true. You are stupid and ignorant.  One must be able to differentiate between lay Christians and knowledgeable Christians. Of the two categories, only the knowledgeable Christians acknowledge that the Gospels (and the OT as well) are currupted and contain errors. For example, the Vatican did acknowledge that not so long ago. But the overwhelming majority of lay Christians have been taught up until the 1950s at least that the Gospels (and Bible in general) are error free and perfect. Many nowadays are shocked when the contradictions in the Bible are shown to them. Not so long ago, I was conversing with a Protestant Christian on the forum and I casually happened to tell him of the many contradictions in his book,  thinking that he already knew about it. I was astonished by his refusal to accept such a now well known fact. It seemed to me that he didn't know of the many errors and contradictions in his book. He was clearly an ignorant Christian but like him there are many.

Repeat: Your desperate, OCD and delusional accusation of me as stupid is because you are really stupid.

Talking of spoon feeding when I am the one who need to spoon feed you.
Read my point again.

I stated;
Christians NEVER claimed the following;
1. The Gospels are perfect
2. The Gospels are not-corrupted.

Yes, the knowledgeable Christians admit and accept the Gospels are corrupted because they had been translated by human via many languages.
As such what they relied upon are the divine principles and cross-checking via the various verses.

Re Jeremiah 8:8 here is the counter from Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;

I watched that. These people are clowns. They have not presented any argument; Trinitarian Christians are very bad at logic; I recently witnessed that on the forum itself. That is because the moment someone embraces the Trinity, it's bye bye logic for them until they realize that they have been fooled and reject it.

The following is an argument that conclusively settles the matter. It's obvious that one cannot both, on the one hand, accept that the Bible is corrupted (as Christians scholars do) and on the other hand counter Jeremiah 8:8, which is saying the Jewish scriptures are corrupted! I am not surprised though that you didn't see that contradiction as we all now know you are stupid. Anyway, I now will present the evidence from true Bible scholars on Jeremiah 8:8.

There is a scholarly book which is a collection of academic papers of around 18 recognized Bible scholars (most of them Christians) which addresses the corruption of the Jewish scriptures: Changes in Scripture, Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila.

Knowledge of Hebrew is recommended for one to be able to read all the chapters of the book as the numerous examples of corruption shown in the book are in Hebrew, the original language.

An excerpt from a chapter of the book written by biblical scholar John J Collins  on Jeremiah 8:8 on page 23:

• “How can you say,  ‘We are  wise,  and  the law  of  the Lord  is  with  us,’ when,  in  fact,  the false  pen of  the scribes  has  made it  into  a lie”  (Jer  8:8)
  
  We do  not  know  precisely  what Jeremiah had in mind  in his scathing denunciation  of  scribal  activity  on  the  Torah.  Many  scholars  think  that the  prophet  was opposed  to any written Torah.1  He  was  certainly  concerned  that  the  authority  of  the  prophet to  speak  for God  was being usurped by  the scribes,  as  indeed  it  was.  But it  is also established beyond  doubt  that  scribes frequently changed  the supposedly  revealed texts that they  transmitted. Ironically,  the book of  Jeremiah is itself a prime  example of scribal composition,  where  the  original oracles of the prophet are  now  overshadowed  by  the  accretions, often ideological, of scribal transmission.2  Of   course,  Jeremiah’s   judgment  on  such  accretions  reflects a particular perspective,  which  is not  inevitable. Religious traditions  sometimes  value  the  contributions  of  the  editors,  who  gave the  material its  canonical shape,  more than  those of the prophets.  It  is often  assumed that these editors were attempting  to preserve and  explicate  the  true   meaning  of  their  sources,  and  undoubtedly  this  was often so.  But  Jeremiah’s outburst  should  warn  us  that a  “hermeneutic  of suspicion”  towards  the ideological  underpinnings of scribal  activity  is not  entirely  anachronistic.  Claims  to  speak  with  divine  authority  were especially fraught  with  implications  for power in ancient society,  and were inevitably, and  properly,  contested.

That you derogate them as clowns is a sign you are admitting you are a loser subconsciously. You should research more on psychology on such a principle.

In principle the only authority a Christian is obligated-to is the 4 Gospels. Jeremiah of the OT is secondary.

Logic?
We have already discussed, [for theists] the principles of the Trinity are analogous to what is going on in the empirical world of 'unity in diversity' substance and forms.

_______________

Re Luke 19:27
Here is the counter Al Fadi, David Wood and Sam Shamoun;

I watched the David Wood monologue till the end. And he is in fact saying that biblical Jesus did indeed refer to himself in the verse Luke 19:27! This is how stupid some people can be; in trying to refute Luke 19:27, they ended confirming their belief in it!
And don't forget Luke 14:26,  where biblical Jesus is clearly commanding hate towards family and community members:

• “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

As you entertained me with that video, I too will like to do the same for you, God willing. The following YT link will no doubt not fail to entertain you as well: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus

______________

Your video is changing the subject.
As I had I stated, I am not an expert on Christianity, I am confident Al Fadi, Wood and Shamoun will have a counter to your point re Luke 14:26 if they are presented with that counter.

I am not an expert with Christianity. [... I am an expert with Islam and Quran].

It's good that you acknowledge that you are ignorant on Christianity and indeed you are.

It is integrity and honesty that I am not an EXPERT on Christianity, but I am not ignorant of Christianity. If expert is >90/100 mine is 75/100. This is why your stupidity comes in when you are desperate in jumping to conclusion as you always do.

Stop fooling yourself about being an expert on Islam. I exchanged with you numerous times on the forum before, and you are very far from being an expert on anything. Each time I tell you that you are ignorant and stupid. In saying that I am not trying to be mean to you. I tell you that because you really are stupid and ignorant. And I tell you that so that you get opportunities to realize the truth about yourself and not keep fooling yourself like that. Most other members just ignore you(and I don't blame them), while I, on the other hand, take the time to educate you for free when I get the patience and the time. However, I know you, as a Buddhist, have grown accustomed to taking charity to the point that you now think that it's us who owe you something!

I have done enough research on the Quran to be an expert on the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam.
Show me when have you ever overcame any of my points with regards to the Quran and Islam.

____________

Before you throw any counters re Christianity and the Gospel, check the internet, Youtube and elsewhere to make sure there are no solid counters from the experts of Christianity which I will end up referring to.

Stop taking the lazy way each time as your religious founder. Be prepared to do the legwork when you discuss with me. By the way, why are you so lazy?  Buddhism has corrupted you to that degree? It's so disgraceful to be so lazy.

_____________

Christians who killed did it on their personal basis that has nothing to do with their obligation within their contract with Jesus/God.

I don't think those countless pagans(aka polytheists) who were killed by Constantine and all those Christian rulers after him, would agree. Galileo was sentenced to death by the Church itself just for proving scientifically that the Bible was wrong. You already acknowledged your ignorance, but you still have to acknowledge your stupidity. You know you are stupid, don't you? Go and do your research and see the fate of Christian heretics throughout history. Start with a sample of the list of person burned as Christian heretics (both Protestants and Catholics included) on Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... s_heretics
______________

A Christian [like a Muslim] is one who had entered into a contract with God/Allah.
Do you dispute this?

The contractual terms the Christian is obligated to is only in the Gospels and other related texts are merely the appendix to the contract.
If the terms of the contract within the Gospels imposed an overriding pacifist maxim of love all-even enemies, how can any Christian as contracted harm any non-Christians?

In a way you as a Muslim [& any other] is a potential contracted-killer and if you kill non-Muslims there is NO moral issue for you since you will be highly rewarded with eternal life and 72 virgins in paradise.

As a Muslim, I am commanded by God, the Almighty to be kind and just to everyone who does not fight me in religion and who does not expel me from my land and my home. The "72 virgins in paradise" is not mentioned in the Holy Quran.

Agree, the quantity "72" re virgins is not stated in the Quran. However Allah does promise unspecified number 'virgins' [houris] in paradise. It could more or less than 72.

As a Muslim you have entered into a contract with Allah to comply with the terms of the contract stipulated within the Quran in exchange of promises of eternal life and various rewards in paradise.
Do you dispute this?
The terms of the contract of the Muslim is that you are slave to Allah and thus has to carry out all his commands as contracted.
In Quran 5:33 all Muslims are exhorted to kill non-Muslims if they are any threat 'fasadin' [even the slightest] to the religion of Islam. E.g. the drawings of cartoons of Muhammad is one such threat and even discussing the cartoons of Muhammad is a threat to the religion of Islam, thus the non-Muslims ought to be killed with such a threat.

Paris: Teacher Beheaded for Using Cartoons for Discussion
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30680

Where is the kindness show to those who merely draw cartoons of Muhammad?

Btw, fasadin [threats to Islam] include being a non-believers of Islam since if more people become disbelievers, they are a threat [fasadin] to Islam.

In Buddhism, however, according to Buddhist scriptures it is commanded to kill people who have mocked the religion. For example in the Nirvana sutra it is said:

• In just the same way, the Bodhisattva-mahasattva acts likewise for reasons of protecting Wonderful Dharma. Should beings slander Mahayana, he applies kindly lashings, in order to cure them. Or he may take life in order that what obtained in the past could be mended, thus seeing to it that the law [Dharma] could be accorded with. The Bodhisattva always thinks: "How might I best make beings aspire to faith? I shall always act as is best fitted to the occasion."[Nirvana Sutra]

You as a Buddhist are now in an obligation under pervert Sidhartha's commands to kill me as I am telling the truth here and elsewhere that Buddhism is horrible and despicable. Can you resist obeying the lazy parasite who was Sidhartha?

What is also clear, moreover, is that in Buddhism, sex orgies with many young virgin girls have been prescribed by pervert Sidhartha as a way to Enlightenment! As Siddhartha said to Ananda:

• “Ananda, do not conceive of a holy person, someone practicing the Greater Vehicle correctly, as being faulty. Ananda, this is how you should understand it: A person of the vehicle of the auditors, in order to be absolutely peerless in maintaining meditative calm, will seek uninterruptedly to exhaust the outflows. In the same way, Ananda, the Bodhisattva great hero who is skilled in means, who is endowed with the thought of omniscience, will seek uninterruptedly for omniscience, even to the point of abiding among a holy retinue of women and enjoying, playing with, and taking pleasure in it. [The Skill in Means (Upayakausalya) Sutra]

In the 20th century there have been many detailed testimonies from young western women whose virginity were preyed by Buddhist monks in Tibet "strictly" complying with the perversion of Sidhartha. What is more disgusting is that these Tibetan monks were after the vaginal fluids of these virgin girls (known as darkinis); these vaginal fluids they would drink and collect for their followers after their sexual orgies. You as a Buddhist must have been given such vaginal fluids to drink. Anyway, I addressed all this in greater detail on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=25127

As you had mentioned above there are different believers with different competence in their religion, e.g. you refer to Christians.
It is the same with Buddhism, there are the lay-Buddhists and the 'PhD' Buddhists.
What is most critical to Buddhists is Buddhism-proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-evpc-2

The overriding maxim of Buddhism-proper is to be compassionate and be kind to all sentient beings and all living things.

All humans and thus all Buddhists comprised of the very good to the very evil humans.
The very evil humans will commit all sorts of evil acts and that has nothing to do with Buddhism-proper with its overriding pacifist maxims that prohibit all evil acts.
So yes there are many Buddhists who had committed evil acts but there is no way they can insist they did those evil acts in the name of Buddhism-proper.

On the other hand, evil prone Muslims commit terrible evil with the sanction and authority of Allah as stipulated in the Quran.

Virgins are highly valued in the Bible as well.

• 13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.”[Leviticus 21:13-15]

• 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.[Deuteronomy 22:20-21]

And still according to the Bible, biblical Solomon loved many foreign women and it is said in the Bible that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.(see 1 Kings 11:1-3)

As for Hinduism, let us just mention that Krishna had 16,108 wives. For now, we won't need to go into tantra or kamasutra to describe the style!

You are so stupid, ignorant and lazy that each time I have to spoon feed you like that. You haven't answered my previous question though: why are you so stupid and ignorant? Were you born like that or is it later that you acquired your stupidity?

You reference to verses in the OT has not significance to Christians.
As I had stated the only authority to the contracted Christians are the contractual terms in the Gospels [injeel] only.

As for Hinduism, it is said Hinduism is a merely a placeholder for the ">1000" of different religions and spiritual practices within India [old and new].
Therefore to infer Hinduism is either good or bad without reference to the specific religion or spirituality is stupidity - hasty generalization.
Isn't this the spoon-feeding-to-you that you are complaining about others.

What is the essence of Hinduism is spirituality like Advaita Vedanta which promote Ahimsa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa
Ahimsa (also spelled Ahinsa) (Sanskrit: अहिंसा IAST: ahiṃsā, Pāli:[1] avihiṃsā) ("nonviolence") is an ancient Indian principle of nonviolence which applies to all living beings. It is a key virtue in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

The above is the many sort of spoon-feeding I have to do to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______

Hume asserted the self is merely a bundle of activities and nothing more, i.e. he meant no substantial self such as a permanent soul.

However empirical evidence from personal experience and observation there is obviously the trinity of the following;
1. the empirical self [physical which all can verify],
2. the I-self [the mental self personhood] and
3. empirical self that is interdependent within all other empirical selves.

All the above are verifiable empirically and philosophically.