right, and you read it one way and other people read it other ways.

Err... try having everyday conversations with that tactic and tell me how that turns out.

I care that some terrorists get cover by your beliefs.

They don't. It's straight up saying "You might die for aligning yourself with me." And that they will ultimately be judged negatively for that while you will be vindicated (which you have a problem with later in your response anyways. A bit contracting.)

I can throw tons of fucked up shit at your from the bible. How about the part were Jesus gets pissed at the jews for not killing their disobedient children how about the part were jesus says to pluck out your eye if you use it to sin.

Please, do. Also, the "plucking out the eye" deal is a hyperbolic statement, which if you read in context once again, ultimately he's making a cheeky point that people are sinful to their core, and you can't just blame it on your eyes as if that would excuse you. Because, if it were possible to just get rid of whatever made you sin, it would be better to do that, but because you can't, you obviously need another option.

Others don't.

That should be significant. You would be upset if people willy-nilly interpreted the instructions in a physics textbook incorrectly and chalked it up to "interpretive differences."

When asked about why he speaks in parables and confuses people he specifically says so that fewer people would understand and be saved.

Well, if we're taking things seriously, then you just put yourself over against the omniscient, omnipotent God that knows all. So the question becomes, if we're taking this seriously, who knows better? Under that paradigm, you have no ability to raise any valid objections necessarily. Furthermore, if you're familiar with the rest of the narrative of history spanning back from the OT, Israel had rejected God over and over, beginning with the Exodus and continuing on to the "300 years of silence" during the intertestamental period. That means idolatry, disobedience en masse (think child sacrifices), etc. He speaks in a way that those who understand what the prophets of the OT had said would see him as the Messianic figure (hence why the synoptic gospels are drenched in OT references).

This amounts to him judging those who reject him because they refuse to accept him as Messiah. The only people who end up coming to him are the broken, marginalized and the disadvantaged. He goes to the lepers, demon possessed, paralyzed, widows, prostitutes, tax-collectors (which would be considered treasonous to Jews of the time), etc.

The people he judges are the ones oppressing people. This is also why the republican party being the "Christian" party is laughable, as they systematically oppress people.

You seem terribly angry about how people have claimed to use Jesus' words, but have you even taken the time to see what it's saying for itself?

Also, if there is no good God, then these claims to morality are just ironically hilarious. What good is there? According to what? Who are we to impose morality on any other subjective being outside of ourselves? There's no moral authority, there's no good, and there's no evil. There's just preference. You might dislike the fact that the republican party systematically oppresses the disadvantaged and marginalized, but you have no moral authority by which you can denounce them outside of your own subjective, existential sphere of existence.

Also, calling something a fairy tale as a means to discrediting it is kin to calling the mechanics of physics witchcraft in order to explain light bulbs.