Correct, ironically not even with itself.

Exemplary stance of donating eye's for your enemy is within World's but not of it, only a Constitutional judge can enforce eye for eye absolutism.

Will the whole World go blinded alike not to seeing Live even an Elephant awhile sagacious Politician idolized.

Why from Catholicism and not from Christianity?! Why exclude other Christian sects?

the reason why western elites do not like the idea that islamic teachings reach their peasants is because of the islamic financial and economics system (look into the shepherd model presented by Almir Colan) as it creates a force that goes against the interest and debt based economic system that makes the rich richer and the poor remain poor or become poorer. It forbids bribery, monopoly and the corrupt lobbying that has been shaping laws for decades in the favor of corporations. All the other aspects of Islam is not of a concern for them and are only used as a way to propagate an anti-islam narrative and shed fear into the hearts of non-muslims, such as the lie of misogyny, pedophilia, barbarism or the idiotic claims of Holland that go even beyond the stupidity of anti-islam conspiracy theories. The advent and existence of people like Tom Holland, David Wood etc are one, to make money off of this discussion, second, to propagate the own (or 3rd party's ) agenda, in Hollands case it seems to be Christianity but i am not sure of that entirely.

He grew up in Salisbury which is in a prosperous part of southern England, called Wiltshire. So his accent is comparatively articulate aka ‘posh’ in the context of England as a whole.

If that is honestly the conclusion you came out of this with, Your intelligence and your reading and your comprehension are all completely lacking. You're so ill informed it's embarrassing.

try having this discussion with your woke overlords and you might want to actually listen to this video or read Dominion or a history book or two or maybe even the Bible or maybe even take a deep deeep dive in the Quran maybe, just some suggestions

Precisely the point is that there is no “secular”. The materialistic worldview is reaching its dialectic end and is obvious that there is a need to return to ritual and to contemplate the trascendental (people do it regardless if they believe in religion or not). This is not matter of opinion, is the results of history. Tom Holland is not arguing a thesis he though about; he is arguing a truth that he couldn’t avoid while looking for something else. This is not really his opinion, his thesis is the evidence found. The “modern world” concept is dying down. The future does not lie.

@@universalflamethrower6342 Woke overloerds? What in the whole wide world of gibberish are you on about? You throw some inane modern soundbite as if it has anything at all to do with what I said, and then proceed to tell me 'where I'm going wrong'. I have many of Tom Holland's books, I think they're excellent takes on history - I have read plenty of history, thanks for your (clearly condescending) advice. And I have read the bible...yes, I seriously have - what a bizarre, psychotic jumble of tales that is. The idea that this collection is, or should be, the guiding light of humanity...Jeez! So, anyway, to my point. Secularisation is NOT a Christianprocess, about which you said nothing - which isn't hard to understand - how could secularism possibly be a Christian process?

@@fobos9289 But that's my point - people have always contemplated the transcendental - it isn't Christianity that brought that about. If it were Christian thinking that shaped our world then, how come Christianity (s) have changed so much? People bring ideas into play from outside Christianity - Christianity itself is a jumble of ideas from many sources - which Tom clearly knows and has expressed many times. Would St. Paul have approved of the Reformation? Weren't the ideas behind the reformation almost Pelagian in nature? If the truth he is arguing is that we're more spiritual than we tend to think...no issue with that. If the truth is claimed to be - that's because of the church, that's what I disagree with. And the 'taming' of the monster that was the Church was not an act of the Church, and so it's ridiculous to talk of 'christianising' Islam.

@@colinmarkwick141 the “fall of men” is told in the Bible as the result of man’s disobedience to God. We can say it in another way, there are truth in reality, in nature, that man does not wishes to follow or obey. This is foolish since we are not rulers of ourselves or lords of the reality that surrounds us. However man insists in determining by and for himself what’s good and what is bad. But perhaps we confuse what we “like” with what’s “good” and what we dislike with “bad”. Precisely the search for the “trascendental” is man’s quest to find his place in nature/history; his quest to know what is objectively good and what is bad. We try to decide among ourselves these terms and we fail all the time. History, in a way, is a conversation that man’s been having for millennia with itself; free will allows us to “try” anything and we learn by experience what works and what does not, hence sin (sin not in the moral sense but in the sense of missing the mark, I.e. committing error). Jesus (no matter if we believe he is historical or not) is the best example of how to be “human”, how to commune with God. Man has argued in favor or against the truth of Christianity according to his own ignorance or intentions, however all these discussions are for nothing (just like this long post, but ideas require explaining), to imitate Christ is to be a Christian; to “talk” about Christ is pointless. Love is conquering the World and it’s doing it throughout time and trough all the ages. Eventually humankind would have reached true knowledge of God. By that point I hope we can’t stop to ponder about life and just live truly. I feel I wrote a lot and said nothing at the same time. What’s your take?

The Kingdom of God is like a little yeast that is put inside the dough to make it grow.

Is neither. Is culture. This culture involves a religious tradition and believe and contains many different races and nationalities. To be a Jew is an identity that is impacted by 4000 years of continuous history. 4000 years can’t be contained inside concepts as “race” or “religion”. The believes that support religion are older and more real than language itself.

You can be a Jew and an atheist at the same time

It was both at different points in time. Only recently did it come to be seen as an ethnic background. And in the past, many different peoples converted to Judaism and their descendants are alive today

@@konyvnyelv. I have several such in my family. I am a messianic Jew.

you are brainwashed by western academia