That passage is taken out of context, much like I see gun rights activisits (for the record I'm not anti-gun) use the one where Jesus instructs his apostles to arm themselves, ommiting what comes after where he uses that to prompt his arrest and insists they engage in no violence.

The passage you quoted is from a parable Jesus was telling his followers about a nobleman-turned-king and how he treated his followers as a lesson as to why one should keep faith in God even when times are hard or he seems unworthy of it. At no point did Jesus actually condone killing in the name of God (and in fact in the parable they were being killed for not earning their King interest on money he left them to invest as opposed to some lack of religious devotion, "interest" being a concept Jesus also found reprehensible), but unfortuantely as he was telling the parable and speaking the words of the King within it we've seen that quote taken out of context and propogated across the internet.

It would be as if you were reading the story of the Red Riding Hood and people pulled some quotes from the wolf's speaking parts, assuming you to therefore be into dressing in grandmother's clothes and eating little girls lol

That said, I agree with most of what you say (though I don't feel we need a world without religion), as religions really are what their adherents make them. The problem is that, for Christians even dating back to the first few centuries, they primarily focused their attention on the New Testament (once formed) or their own various books and such (many of which we still have portions of but did not make the cut for the "Bible") that were popular in the region. They certainly retained their Jewish roots (for the first 100 years they were more a Jewish Sect than a separate religion) and did read and keep the old testament as it was the cultural and historical origin from which Christianity birthed and provided the backbone of their beliefs (original sin in Genesis, Ten Commandments in Exodus etc), but they almost immediately began ignoring some of the many, many rules of the Old Testament.

The main issue was that the Jewish tradition was based entirely around living according to God's will and waiting for a savior, while Christians believed that Jesus was the savior and, as he said himself according to Matthew, while he did not come to abolish the Old Laws, he did come to fulfill them and build upon them. For Christians, everything prior to the New Testament was worthy of study and they certainly revered figures from the old testament (Adam, Abraham/Susan and Isaac, Noah (the flood being a story dating back to the Sumerians), Soloman, David and so forth). Likewise, there were just so many wonderful parables and proverbs that were full of wisdom and helpful advice (seriously, even an atheist can appreciate the logic and wisdom of many stories that frequently deal more with man than the divine) and we still refer to them today. Despite that, to them Jesus was the savior, and so it was his words and actions that most influenced them.

Oddly, there is one man that is honestly almost equal to Jesus in his impact on Christianity, and that is Paul (formerly Saul). About half of the New Testament involves Paul, consists of his writings, or was influenced by him, and it was he who really instigated the widespread conversion of gentiles (non-jews). This can both be seen as a good thing for Christianity, in that Christianity flourished and the inclusion of gentiles meant that even greater emphasis was placed on the teachings of Jesus over the Old Testament with which they had no background, but unfortunately almost every violent, furious thing you hear the bible-thumping judgemental types say originates with him.

While Jesus made a habit of visiting and dining with the sick, the violent, the pagans, the Jews, the soldiers, the adulterers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, and literally anyone who would have him even when the crowds felt he shouldn't (such as when he agreed to go with the tax collector or refused to stone the adulterer), you'll find that Paul was a lot less inclusive (paradoxically given he was so open to gentile conversion) and is the origin of a lot of the persecutions Christians, when they were done being persecuted themselves, would begin inflicting upon others.

As you said, religion can be a good force in this world, but the very thing that gives it its strength also makes it dangerous. Religion can convince us that there is a right and wrong in this world, convince us that each life holds value when nature constantly suggests otherwise; it can make the wealthy and the poor equal in importance (which is why Christianity spent its first 300 years as a poor-man's religion), it can allow us absolution when we have sinned so that we may move on with our lives mindful of how we've wronged, and it can allow us to use concepts and phrases like "inalienable rights" bestowed not by man but by the "creator", necessitating then that they may never be taken away by man.

Conversely, of course, it provides grounds for the persecution of those who do not live according to the interpreted teachings of some religion, and it can make many people and actions "immoral" who are not harming anyone around them. I think Justinian's wife Theodora best exemplifies the good and the bad of this, as she was driven by her faith to found many of the first orphanages and hospitals as she came to believe that all human life had value (a rather remarkable belief in the 6th century, likely helped by the fact that she was once a slave and a dancer), and she protected her Miaphysite Christian community from her husband's Chalcedonian Christianity, but she simultaneously used her position to persecute Jews who she viewed as denying the divinity of her savior.

With Islam this is a bit different. First, every word is seen as being exactly the word of God, and while they adapted an enormous amount of the Jewish and Christian faiths their takes are quite different on them, with Muhammed reigning as the most important of the five prophets (Noah/Abraham/Moses/Jesus/Mohammed). By far the biggest difference, though, is that the Quran was recorded within the lifetime of Muhammed himself (a page from one that was written by someone living close enough that he likely knew Mohammed has recently been found, and it shows little to no difference from modern writings), giving him complete authorial control. Likewise, he structured the average day of an adherent almost unlike any religion we've seen, requiring they drop everything and pray to Mecca five times a day for instance. If you are a strong believer, Islam is on your mind 24/7.

Within the Quran and Hadith, then, are unfortunately far more references and calls to violence than you'd ever find from someone like Jesus in the gospels. While it is exceptionally easy to find many examples of calls to jihad and such, it can just as easily be interpreted more literally (jihad meaning struggle), which involves adhering to the faith and acting according to Allah's teachings. We've seen examples of both the militaristic side of Islam (such as when they conquered land ranging from the north of Spain, through north africa, to nearly all of the middle east and turkey in under a century), and examples of them being fairly welcoming of others (such as only applying the Jizya tax on "people of the Books" (Jews and Christians) rather than forcing a conversion).

The nature of Islam, the Quran, and the Hadith make it far easier to convince an average person that violence upon non-believers is "right" than most other world religions, but that does not mean it is only a violent religion. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can really do that would do anything but exacerbate the current problem of extremists, as violence and going on the attack tends to lead only to more radicals, not less. For the time being our only option is to really accept this state as a reality and, while trying to prevent it, know that more will come.

I'm not abandoning them. i just don't see the point of repeating myself to someone who's done almost nothing in a thread about a recent terrorist attack but argue with people who are making valid points in this. 

I cant say I know of such group, but if they just dont promote such pasages, but dont condem them when they are brought up(if thats what they do) then its the same thing. Wich again is the point of cristinitys reform. They dont promote such barbarity, but acknoledge is in the book and say its not good anymore and all that. wich is a wold of diference.

And to the second point of the 24% who belive is 100% word of god. The reform tells them that before jesus it was a diferent time and it as allowed but that all change and now anyone who acts that way will suffer under gods hand.  So they still belive is 100% word of god, but they know that is no longer permited, well at least the majority of them do. Wich is why islam is so dangerous right now, they got no such notion of the passage of time. They still think what applys then, still does now.

Most of what I have done is made factual statements against provably inaccurate claims. The fact you can't even concede to simple factual points has me wonder why I'm replying. 

First statement I replied to, Immagration is at fault for recent attacks in the UK. False, all known attackers in the UK have not been immigrants.
Second statement: Their mosque had something to do with it. False, their mosque reported them. 

Why are you making something so simple so difficult?

Such a religion of peace

I said "God" as he was speaking on God's behalf, and the nature of his relationship with God spawned many, many competing Christian Sects, so I won't get into that lol

As I said, that passage was from a parable Jesus was telling; the King himself suggested that they kill in his name and not for faith-based reasons but rather over money and respect. Jesus was using the story not to suggest that people should kill one another in the temporal world, but rather as an example of what will happen should you stray from your faith and suddenly be confronted by God's judgement (as in should you die in the midst of being a doubter). Death is almost always unexpected, and the reason he used the parable was to demonstrate that one should maintain their faith even when they have reasons for doubt or times are tough, lest they be caught unready for death when it comes. A central theme of Christianity is the belief that one day the world will indeed come to an end, the savior will return, and all will be judged for their sins. Even then, he suggested the doubters would be the "least" of heaven, while the faithful would be the "greatest", so it's not even clear that he was saying those people would go to Hell.

If there's one group Jesus legitimately seemed to dislike, it was not those who one would expect the religious to dislike but is rather those who claim to be believers, make a big show of being believers, and benefit from being believers, but aren't actually so. It's why in the Sermon on the Mount he specifically warned against large congregations for prayer or wearing your religion on your sleeve, suggesting prayer should be done in private so that it may be sincere.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry to much about the word "wretched" as it is not an insult, but rather indicates suffering. It was used a lot, such as when Solomon explains how God will save the wretched of the earth, and I'm pretty sure if we lived in the 1st century AD or earlier we'd agree that very nearly everyone led very "wretched", painful lives.

Finally, it's true that religion provides answers and doesn't necessitate critical thought (though it has certainly spurred it on for centuries), and inolves believing things that lack proper evidence. Unfortunately, that's something we're all eventually forced to do regardless of whether or not we subscribe to any particular religion. We all still have our own sense of what behavior is right, wrong, or at the very least should and should not be done, and no amount of philosophizing ever actually yields us foundational facts on which to construct a society. For now we all just have to discuss the issue and see how we feel about things at any given moment, but it will always include the adoption of things not based in fact.

I agree with you there that its normal than when one part is questioned then they start questioning other things untill questioning the entire thing.

But I dont think that I can provide a link as to some proove as I long separated from any religious gathering, read any passage, or even heard any online sermon or rebutal. Dont think I can even stomac a video just to prove a point. But something that should be quite comon, wich was when I was a regular atendant at church, was what you mentioned. They read some story and skiped the awfull parts, like god ordering to kill and burne villages wit women and children, even the catle sufering. but when asked why they skiped certain parts, or bringing a certain brutal part to their atention, they never deny such passages, they faced it head on and do some kind of mental gymnastics to say it was ok back then, but now its not and they dont aprove. I think thats something that should be easy to find online of some pastors defending the horrble verses in the bible.

To your second point. That might be the key here. We stood up to crazzy cristians rules, like gay, divorce, adultry, apostesy and all that nonsense that was punishable before. Back then people still thought it was crazzy but obey because of the consecuenses of speaking back. That might be the issue now with islamic territories. They might be good people but their law will send them to prison or even kill them if they try to change something. They might be a majority of civilized people but they are to afraid to try to do anything.

They were not factual statements especially when you keep trying to reword them to better argue against me. You provided no proof so drop the factual hogwash. 

When you let in immigrants that do not adapt and accept the ways of the society that they move to and they create these communities that are almost exclusively of them, it becomes an environment that's the perfect breeding ground to radicalize any disgruntled muslim in that country. So it is a immigration problem because a part of immigrating to another country is integrating into it's society, learning their language and adopting their values/ways. They are not being radicalized from over the net but rather in their neighborhoods. Terrorist groups/extremists need a lot of support from their communites to function. Turning a blind eye to them is aiding them. If every muslim turned in any muslim who was extremist or saying certain things, terrorism wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Just because a person within a mosque reported a few people within that mosque doesn't mean that some of the mosque don't agree with the extremists or agree with reporting them. 

So if you look at my original comments they weren't factual? Please tell me what the facts are otherwise.

The parents of the attackers have spoken out. They do not have criminal records. They speak english, They have worked jobs. 

Assimilation is important, I would assimilate to any society that I move to, if it's a society I wouldn't want to assimilate to (ie. Saudi Arabia) I wouldn't live there. But in this case, it isn't relevant as they did assimilate. 

But when they turn them in, nothing happens (that we know of). One of the attackers last night is already confirmed to have been on a watchlist after being reported by his friend. Our Police force has been cut considerably in recent years by the government, meaning with all the other duties they have, they don't have the manpower to effectively tackle terrorism without taking important resources from somewhere else. We are incapable of doing it because our police force has been sucked dry. The men and women of our police force are fantastic and dealt with it greatly. They just don't have the resources to effectively deal with this, that is a major reason why (as well as particular muslims being trash) this is happening. 

That's true. But it also doesn't mean you're allowed to assume the entire mosque is behind them, all we know is that they had reported him. 

Oh, so Obama must have been a racist too to help create so many.