Humans are marvelous, fascinating creatures.
In the linked article, the table of the "main" differences are shockingly trivial from my perspective and include:
1) How "Jesus" is spelled 2) How to hold your fingers when making the sign of the cross 3) Procession direction (CW vs CCW) 4) etc.
That either side was willing to kill or die over these things is something I simply can't understand.
And in fact, the reforms were about making things more like what the Greek church was doing at the time. Russian traditions, meanwhile, were based on old Greek ones, and basically better conserved. It went above and beyond matters of dogma and ritual, even down to stuff like clothing and hairstyles.
Tsar Aleksei was also a Grecophile, and to him this was less abstract than just church issues - he was seriously eyeing Constantinople as a potential "Orthodox Reconquista", with himself as the new Constantine -the emperor of the Orthodox faithful. Military feasibility aside, this all is a lot easier if tsar's take on Orthodoxy itself is more consistent with what the Greeks see as such.
It is just difficult to see in own case.
I suspect hated of religion may have blinded you, making you ignorant of facts.
For example in the Koran believers are told, in unabrogated verses, to kill anyone who isn't Muslim (paraphrasing: 'strike down non-believers wherever you find them').
In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies.
Buddhism seems to me to be most pacifist of the major World religions. In contrast Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism all have warring as central elements of their doctrine; modern followers may have 'workarounds' for those.
These are not trivial differences.
But also:
>34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
To remain consistent to the message of the text it seems Jesus must have been speaking figuratively in your quote and I don't think any stretch is needed there? His immediate disciples appear to have acted consistent with that after his death.
In contrast, but with similar consistency, when Mohammed says strike down unbelievers, that is also what he did - he was a successful warlord who besieged and put to the sword entire cities (according to Islamic sources: Koran and Hadith). IMO his transition to allowing opposing fighters to live, if they convert; then allowing Christians and Jews to live if they pay jizya; were the principle elements that allowed early growth - he turned cities in to golden geese, rather than razing them to the ground.
His immediate followers of course also killed non-believers (and all the rest that we associate with mediaeval war).
It's worth noting that where I am in the UK, there are many Muslims and quite a few are amongst my friends; none of them appear to follow Mohammed or the Koran in this aspect.
People are not religions. There are examples of Buddhists being extremely violent for example, that doesn't mean Buddhism is bad; adherents who act malevolently didn't negate the worth of a particular doctrine. And vice versa: doctrine that is malevolent doesn't negate the worth of supposed proponents.
Do you have a source that you've found convincing on those surah being abrogated?
Presumably sources that say that was only for Mohammed necessarily would condemn his warring (making him not a paragon, and destroying a central premise), and what of the caliphs that followed Mohammed. I'd be interested in a mainstream condemnation of Islamic military expansion, if there is one?
Even the "righteous" caliphs did all kinds of things contradicting the Sunnah, so I don't think that's a very useful yardstick. But overall, given that the Caliphate had plenty - indeed, early after the initial conquests, the majority of its population - following different religions, it's pretty obvious that the commandment wasn't taken quite so verbatim even then. And, on the other hand, consider the ultimate fate of the Kharijites, who kinda took it to heart.
For example, with the fingers, the original two-finger crossing gesture was said to represent the dual but inseparable nature of Christ. This is particularly important for Christianity, because of the heavy debates on christology in the early centuries of the Church resulting in several major schisms. I mean, even the Nicene creed - which is still the standard creed for most major Christian denominations - specifically addresses it.
(And since the Oriental Orthodox churches produced by those schisms never went away, neither did the importance of emphasizing the theological differences with them. So the accusation of monophysitism was still a serious business especially in the wider Orthodox community.)
The official explanation was that three fingers stood for the Trinity - but non-trinitarian Christian denominations were already so obscure at that point, it was seen kinda like declaring that water is wet, i.e. not controversial at all. Thus, doing away with two fingers and replacing it with three, sounded to many believers like the Church leaders were suddenly reluctant to criticize monophysitism. From which there's an obvious step to believing that the Church leaders are secretly harboring that heresy themselves.
I believe it's really more about fear(of death/hell) than devotion. Most religions have pretty effective rituals/routines to keep you in that kid of state. Once hooked-in it's hard to get out.
I disagree. Religion isn't about being afraid, it's about learning to cope. Rituals are important because rituals are rote. You can fall back on them when life is spiraling out of control and find a foothold.
I think one of the big problems that modern Christianity faces (since that is the tradition I am part of) is that it has shifted to focus too much on the feminine side of things. There is a reason churches are predominately filled with women. The things the church focuses on appeal to women.
The church and religion have a place for men too, but broadly what men need from religion is not what is being delivered.
One of my favorite hymn lines is "Learn from Jesus Christ to die". To me, that is what the church offers that appeals most directly to me. How to face mortality, failure, and uncertainty. Several years ago when my father was dying of cancer, it's something I leaned on heavily. When you are too devastated to think clearly, you fall back on the rituals that you can perform without thinking and take solace from the wisdom within them.
It's no wonder that we become religious when we are most vulnerable. Giving up control gives us comfort. Religions have a ready answer for everything but don't be mistaken, they always double down on fear because fear sells well. "All" the religions threaten with hell in this life and the afterlife if you dare to dissaffiliate. Not to mention that deep down you know that without religion you are doomed to face a harsh reality. I used to believe that religions serve a therapeutic need but unfortunately they've been twiested in so many ways , they try to be so many things that I can't see them more than some tales of wisdom like the Greek mythology. I belive it's a red and blue pill choice.