Mark 6:11
>And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
What actually happened:
>Conversion to Christianity met great opposition among the Bulgarian elite. Some refused to become Christians while others apostatized after baptism and started a rebellion against Boris for forcing them to be baptized. Some people did not object necessarily to the Christian religion but to the fact that it was brought by foreign priests, which, as a result, established external foreign policy. By breaking the power of the old cults, Boris reduced the influence of the boyars, who resisted the khan's authority. In the summer of 865 a group of Bulgar aristocrats (boyars) started an open revolt. Boris ruthlessly suppressed it and executed 52 boyars together with their entire families. Thus the Christianization continued.
>In 889 Boris abdicated the throne and became a monk. His son and successor Vladimir attempted a pagan reaction, which brought Boris out of retirement in 893. Vladimir was defeated and Boris had him blinded, his wife shaved and sent to a monastery. Boris gathered the Council of Preslav placing his third son, Tsar Simeon I of Bulgaria, on the throne, threatening him with the same fate if he too apostatized.
And that person was a monk at that.

>>17803403 (OP)
No

Also noone cares about Bulgaria

>>17803411
>No
That's not an argument
>Also noone cares about Bulgaria
>The Saxons rejected Christianisation, likely in part because doing so would have involved giving up their independence and becoming part of the Frankish realm. They were eventually forcibly converted by Charlemagne as a result of their conquest in the Saxon Wars in 776/777: Charlemagne thereby combined religious conversion with political loyalty to his empire. Continued resistance to conversion seems to have played a role in Saxon rebellions between 782 and 785, then again from 792 to 804, and during the Stellinga rebellion in 844.

>>17803403 (OP)
No

>>17803470
Not an argument.

>>17803403 (OP)
>Render unto Caesar
the boyars forgot to render their owed taxes unto based Boris so he chastised them

>>17803484
But they were not Christians.

Christians have always imposed their religion with force and threats, this is why it's crumbling right now since it's no longer mandatory to follow it.
Personally, I prefer being a Jahbulon worshiper since it was never imposed on me.

>>17803403 (OP)
Mark 6 is Jesus talking to the Apostles specifically and giving them instructions to them, specifically, not the entire Christian congregation, and the people who Jesus is talking about not receiving and hearing the Apostles are 1st century Jews.

These are not instructions for all the church to evangelize at all times, they're specific instructions about preaching to the Jews given to the Apostles, not all Christians.

>>17803517
Where is the logic in what you just wrote?

>>17803492
They were still his subordinates

>>17803522
Clearly not.

>>17803520
You admonished Christians for supposedly not following Jesus' instructions on evangelization and conversion, I rebutted you by saying that those instructions are not for all Christians at every instance of evangelization, but given speficially to the Apostles for evangelizing Jews. You should just read Mark 6 in its entirety, it's pretty clear.

https://www.esv.org/Mark+6/

>And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.

Mark 6:7-13

>>17803525
Are you talking about the ones he beheaded?
They were just rebels, got what they asked for

>>17803533
So where exactly are these acts that I quoted allowed? Once again you're being illogical.

>>17803537
They only asked for the religion to be kept.

>>17803538
>So where exactly are these acts that I quoted allowed?
The Old Testament, Boris' actions fit pretty well with people like Joshua, David, Solomon and others.

>>17803544
So once again you can't prove anything at all, fascinating.

>>17803540
Cuius regio eius religio
Don't like it? Build your own church

>>17803571
Not an argument.

>>17803556
>Where is this justified?!?!?!
>The Old Testament
>So nowhere?!?!?!

>>17803581
These events happened after the New Testament.

>>17803584
So? The Old Testament is just as much Scripture as it is the New Testament, just becase one came after the other doesn't invalidate it.

>>17803595
Like John 8:7?

>>17803599
What about John 8:7? Jesus upholded the law:
>Go ahead and stone her because that is what the Law requires. But the Law also requires that the first stone be thrown by a person who is sinless in connection with this charge
(John 8:6–7)
The woman did indeed deserve to be stone to death, that is not what Jesus questioned, what He questioned was the men's right to carry out the sentence.

>>17803411
Incredible. The christians concedes in the first post.

Define illegitimate.

>>17803618
So Boris was righteous enough to do that?

>>17803629
Mark 6:11
>And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
The opposite of that.

>>17803630
I will not cast judgement on him, I'll leave that judgement to God, He knows whether He was righteous enough and whether or not his actions pleased Him.

He is long dead anyway, he's alredy been judged by God.

>>17803632
So you're being illogical again...

>>17803632
>Will you judge this person who is long dead and already judged by God?
>No, I do not know whether his actions were righteous and pleasing to God, I'll leave that up to Him to decide.
>You're being illogical?!?!?!

>>17803631
Nobody chose to read this directly from Bible, they were indoctrinated as children.
Now define illegitimacy.

>>17803635
>>17803639

>>17803403 (OP)
Yes, for all intents and purposes. Though most is a bit of an overstatement, I would argue it was a 50/50 (or 60/40) forced/willing conversion. This includes Roman Europe, for the record, there is evidence for active suppression of still extant Pagan Cults, and the force conversion of Jews cannot be forgotten, either.

>>17803639
>if you're righteous you can do things that are considered evil and against his very belief
>can't answer if that person was in the right to do these things
You clearly don't even know basic logic.
>>17803640
So you're saying that it's even more contradictory, woah!
>Now define illegitimacy
Conversing people in a non-Christian way, as shown already.

>>17803642
Actually the only Christian region where the ratio is not similar is probably the middle east Unironically.

>>17803648
Define Christian way and explain how threatening with genocide is legitimate.

>>17803654
I posted the verse Mark 6:11
>explain how threatening with genocide is legitimate
I don't know, this what you agree with, you're the one that have to explain it.

>>17803648
>>if you're righteous you can do things that are considered evil and against his very belief
We're talking about the adulterous woman again? Stoning an adulterous person is not evil.
>>can't answer if that person was in the right to do these things
How does that make me illogical? Declining to answer a question for which I know I can't answer properly makes me illogical? I would say that is if anything a sign of humility and intellectual honesty.

>>17803658
Sorry but I don't understand niggerbabble, explain that verse into English, or German if you prefer.

>>17803660
>We're talking about the
Oh, you have dementia, sorry for replying to you.

>>17803660
>Stoning an adulterous person is not evil.
Only God can judge, sorry that he didn't tell you that before you got a place in hell with no refunds.

>>17803665
>>We're talking about the
I think the one being demented right now it's you.
If we're talking about Boris, I decline from judging him or his actions, God has already taken care of that.

>>17803664
>can't answer a question sincerely
>does everything he can to dodge it
Yep, you defined yourself pretty clearly which and is very normal for your people to project what you're.

>>17803668
I can't answer to your stupid question because you have yet to define "Illegitimate".
And you're the one who quotes some niggerbabble instead of defining what it means.

>>17803666
>Only God can judge
And God has already judged adultery evil and worthy of being stoned to death. It's not like the men decied for themselves that the woman deserved to be stoned, they specifically cited the Law:
>The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
John 8:3-5
>sorry that he didn't tell you that before you got a place in hell with no refunds.
Making an objectively true moral statement doesn't send you to Hell.

>>17803664
Kota Simple:
>If dem nor welkom una or listin to wetin una dey tok for any place, make una shake di san komot from una leg as una dey leave der, to show sey dem rijet di message.”
If dem wey rijet di Jesus message una leg der leave no more.

>>17803670
>give him a direct example with a verse
>you can't define it
Ah, another basket case...

>>17803675
Give me direct words, not some niggerbabble quote that has no meaning.
Or are you going to keep deflecting?

>>17803676
Are you literally clinically insane to call the Bible that? I can't even tell what's going on here anymore.

>>17803678
You can't even define illegitimacy, so there's no meaningful discussion to be had, typical christnigger.

>>17803680
What...

>>17803624
I'm not a Christian

>>17803425
So, their faith in paganism was obviously not legitimate then

>>17803700
>was obviously not legitimate then
Why?

>>17803403 (OP)
That passage from Mark is while Jesus is still alive and he and all his disciples are working wonderous miracles right in front of the eyes of the Jews, attempting to convince them to follow God. The stiff-necked Jews refuse even though God literally sent his son directly to them and worked countless miracles in front of their very eyes. Therefore, it is right to "shake the dust from your sandals" when you leave those cities who refuse to believe what they have seen with their own eyes. This also ties into the replacement of the Jews as God's chosen people with Christ's Church made up of both the believing Jews and Gentiles receiving the gifts of God, and cutting off the Jews from the inheritance of Abraham.

Comparing this period of Jesus's ministry with the attempts centuries later of mere men to bring the Gospel to the heathens is not correct. Plus Jesus directly commands the Apostles to go and make disciples of all nations in Acts, so conversion was commanded by God, and it is just to do so.

>>17803768
>to the heathens is not correct
Why? Where are forced conversions allowed in Christianity?

>>17803773
Define forced.

>>17803618
If Jesus was not questioning that the woman deserved death for adultery, then why didn't he carry out the sentence himself? Wasn't Jesus without sin? Seems like Jesus was making a different point here about forgiveness, and the opportunity to repent. "Go and sin no more." Are Jesus's parting words to the woman.

>>17803776
>>17803403 (OP)
>>17803425

>>17803403 (OP)
You can tell who really believes because according to Jesus true believers can heal the sick. If you cannot heal the sick you do not really believe.

> “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

>>17803783
He was making a point that none of them keep the law either.

>>17803768
Why do you only refer to Pharisees as Jews and ignore that the disciples were also Jews and they believed, and the masses who believed and will those people he healed and preached to and exorcise demons out of were also Jews.

You only refer to the pharisees who did not believe as Jews.

>>17803573
said the headless boyar

>>17803783
>If Jesus was not questioning that the woman deserved death for adultery, then why didn't he carry out the sentence himself?
Because He was being merciful.
>Wasn't Jesus without sin?
Indeed He was, that's the entire point of the story, that the one Person among the crownd that could have righteously carried out the sentence chose to show mercy and didn't.
>Seems like Jesus was making a different point here about forgiveness, and the opportunity to repent.
Which is not in conflict with the moral fact that adultery is worthy of stoning.