Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Veritas Aequitas]

............
Now, any killing at all is wrong, of course. Good thing Christianity forbids it. If anybody ever committed such a deed, and said he was a Christian for doing it, you have every right to call him out on that, and to point out to him that nothing in Christianity allows him to do that. So you're on good grounds for being skeptical of any such person's claim to association with Christ, if such they make.

Revolutions are inevitably bloody and violent, whether they are Maxist or not. The Stalinist and Maoist and Khmer Rouge purges resulted from the almost religious notion of the State as the unit of almost divine good. Of course this notion was perverted by evil egomaniacs, who (perhaps) believed they were rhe state. How you blame Marx is beyond me. Read "Midnight at Noon", an excellent novel, for further insight. As with the Christian witch craze of the 16th century, the violence was fueled by torture. Accused witches (or counter revolutionaries) were tortured until they named names, and then the names were tortured, and so on. The similarities are striking. Also, it makes sense that people who commit horrible acts use the excuse of the greater good: rhe state for commies, religion for Christians.

As I stated earlier, if the Inquisitors could save one soul from eternal damnation by torturing and killing they thought they were justified, and, given the assumptions, they were right. Perhaps the commies were right, given their assumptions.

Every organized ideology is grounded on its Constitution [law, rules, policies, principles] either explicitly or implicitly that all members has signed into [contracted or covenanted].

I am not an expert on Marx. But if Marx condoned killing of humans in any way, then we can blame him where any Marxist organization incorporated such 'can kill' into their constitution, thence we can condemned them as very immoral.

The US Constitution [ and all nations] do condone 'killing' as an exception in certain circumstances, e.g. war, executions, etc.; in this case, the US Constitutions and the like are not absolutely moral of the highest degree of morality.

On the other hand, the Christianity's morality related to killing [only] of humans is of the highest morality because the Constitutions of Christianity [Gospels only] has an overriding pacifist moral maxim, i.e. love all-even enemies, give the other cheek and so on. Same with Buddhism, Jainism ..
In this case, if a so-claimed Christian killed humans, he could not have done it in the name of Christianity of Jesus but rather on his own person volition and taking personal responsibility to face his sin as a Christian on judgment day.

Those crusader and witch-burners did not commit the evil acts as permitted by Christianity-proper but rather killed [sinned] out of their own personal volition. Fortunately, God is omniscient [knows their intentions] so is likely forgive the sins of killing if done justly or for the greater good. Ultimately it is for the Christian God to judge and never believers to have the final say.

The only main religion that permit the killing of non-believers [upon the slightest threat] is Islam, where such permission is embedded in its Constitution, the Quran; whereof all Muslims are contractually obligated to comply with or else they have sinned and could end up in hell. Those who carry out such a duty are rewarded 10 times more than the ordinary believers will get on judgment day.

[Immanuel Can]

Revolutions are inevitably bloody and violent, whether they are Maxist or not.

He did. And if you know Marx, you know he did.

A Marxist revolution has never been a passive, bloodless thing, either. And the pogroms, purges, incarcerations, tortures and executions that inevitably follow, they're the common pattern, too.

The Stalinist and Maoist and Khmer Rouge purges resulted from the almost religious...

Oh, this is so, so, funny. Marxism fails spectacularly, and it's a "religious" problem? Do go on.

How you blame Marx is beyond me.

How you don't is beyond reason.

As with the Christian witch craze of the 16th century,...

Are you going to play "et tu quoque"? First of all, that's a fallacy, because what somebody else did does nothing at all to excuse what Marxism did, obviously. Secondly, religious murders of ANY kind, by count, are miniscule when compared to what Marxism has done; Marxism's done orders of magnitude worse than the very worst "religion," or all "religions" combined, in fact. Thirdly, you have every right to doubt the testimony of anybody who said, "I'm a Christian" but killed people, if you ever found such. I suggest that is exactly the right way to view the witch craze and the Inquisition, both of which were Catholic phenomena. So you're really wrong in at least three ways, perhaps four. So just pick the one you wish to be wrong in.

Maybe instead, let's pick something actually comparable...

ooops. NOTHING is comparable to the evil Marxism has done. And you know that's true: just Stalin and Mao (without getting into the Kim Jongs, or Pol Pot, or Mugabe, or Castro, or Maduro, or Hoxha, or...or any of the many other murderers who tried to bring Marx's dream into reality) just those two, Stalin and Mao alone, account for no less than 67 million dead bodies. Nothing has ever been close to that.

What did they have in common? Not language, not ethnicity, not history, not culture...just Marxism. And it's the same thing they had in common with all the other murderous despots that flew the red flag.

[Immanuel Can]

How you blame Marx is beyond me.

How about his own words?

“We are aware of the importance that must be accorded to the institutions, customs, and traditions of different countries; and we do not deny that there are countries like America, England (and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland), where the workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means. However true that may be, we ought to recognize that, in most of the countries on the Continent, it is force that must be the lever of our revolutions.” (Marx, 1872, speech in Amsterdam)

"...there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror. Is that clear, gentlemen?...We have no compassion, and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” (Marx, in an editorial after the Prussian government silenced his newspaper.)

"Above all, during and immediately after the struggle the workers, as far as it is at all possible, must oppose bourgeois attempts at pacification and force the democrats to carry out their terroristic phrases. They must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses—instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated—the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction." (Marx and Engels, a public address together, London.)

[Alexiev]

Your quote mining fails to support your accusations. Is that the best you can do? By revolutionary standards, Marx's calls to violence are not extreme.

As for the et tu quoque nonsense, I was supporting my notion that Jesus is not to blame for witch killings and Inquisitions, just as Marx is not to blame for murderous purges. Do you disagree? Should we blame Jesus for the tortures and killings done in His name? That appears to be your position.

[Harbal]

How you blame Marx is beyond me.

How about his own words?

But Marx wasn't rigid on the matter. He also said:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

[Immanuel Can]

How you blame Marx is beyond me.

How about his own words?

But Marx wasn't rigid on the matter. He also said:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

So he was unprincipled, in addition to his manifold personal charms, such as explosive temper, a penchant for violence, arrogance, unwillingness to work, contempt for his family and admirers, lack of actual contact with the proles and his willingness to rape one of them and then abandon his illegitimate child...and his chronic boils.

He gets more wonderful by the minute.

[Harbal]

How about his own words?

But Marx wasn't rigid on the matter. He also said:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

So he was unprincipled, in addition to his manifold personal charms, such as explosive temper, a penchant for violence, arrogance, unwillingness to work, contempt for his family and admirers, lack of actual contact with the proles and his willingness to rape one of them and then abandon his illegitimate child...and his chronic boils.

He gets more wonderful by the minute.

I didn't know he had boils.

[Immanuel Can]

But Marx wasn't rigid on the matter. He also said:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

So he was unprincipled, in addition to his manifold personal charms, such as explosive temper, a penchant for violence, arrogance, unwillingness to work, contempt for his family and admirers, lack of actual contact with the proles and his willingness to rape one of them and then abandon his illegitimate child...and his chronic boils.

He gets more wonderful by the minute.

I didn't know he had boils.

Yep. All the time. Badly. In an 1883 letter to his pal, Frederich Engels, Marx wrote, “the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles to their dying day.” Eugh.

And truth be told, they were the most 'productive' he was in his entire life.

[Harbal]

So he was unprincipled, in addition to his manifold personal charms, such as explosive temper, a penchant for violence, arrogance, unwillingness to work, contempt for his family and admirers, lack of actual contact with the proles and his willingness to rape one of them and then abandon his illegitimate child...and his chronic boils.

He gets more wonderful by the minute.

I didn't know he had boils.

Yep. All the time. Badly. In an 1883 letter to his pal, Frederich Engels, Marx wrote, “the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles to their dying day.” Eugh.

And truth be told, they were the most 'productive' he was in his entire life.

Well I liked him; he was funny.

[Immanuel Can]

Your quote mining fails to support your accusations. Is that the best you can do? By revolutionary standards, Marx's calls to violence are not extreme.

I knew you'd reject the evidence. But you are right to observe that the actual revolutions that Marx's followers caused were a lot worse than what he even explicitly advocated. I doubt he'd have minded, because he was certainly an angry, mean and narcissistic person, and they're not renowned for their mercy, but maybe at some point he'd have said, "Hey, Lenin: kill them a little more gently, would ya?" We can imagine that, if we want.

I was supporting my notion that Jesus is not to blame for witch killings and Inquisitions, just as Marx is not to blame for murderous purges.

But Jesus, unlike Marx, not only didn't call for any of those things, but explicitly taught against them. He said, "Love your enemies." Make an inquisition out of that, if you can.

Not so Marx. He wasn't merely permissive of revolutionary violence, but thought such upheavals should be long, and violent, and not something to apologize for, and he argued they should be directed and made useful to his ideological purposes. The things he said show at least that much, for sure.

[Alexiev]

I was supporting my notion that Jesus is not to blame for witch killings and Inquisitions, just as Marx is not to blame for murderous purges.

But Jesus, unlike Marx, not only didn't call for any of those things, but explicitly taught against them. He said, "Love your enemies." Make an inquisition out of that, if you can.

Not so Marx. He wasn't merely permissive of revolutionary violence, but thought such upheavals should be long, and violent, and not something to apologize for, and he argued they should be directed and made useful to his ideological purposes. The things he said show at least that much, for sure.

I wouldn't make an Inquisition, personally. But many did. Torqemada was reputed to be an excellent theologian, who justified his tortures and executions brilliantly (from what I've read). After all, if we love our enemies. don't we want to save their immortal souls, even if it means torturing and executing? Once we are so sure of the ultimate good (in the case of both communism and Christiaity) Kant's notion of ends not justifying means goes out the window.

[Immanuel Can]

Torqemada was reputed to be an excellent theologian,

That's one seriously low bar of "excellent" you've got there. The wrongness of that claim can be tested against the words of Christ Himself. We don't need to guess.

But let Torquemada be whatever you want, from Pope to the Queen of England, and it says nothing about Marx, and even less about Marxism. That's an et tu quoque fallacy, in any event. Ghengis Khan being Ghengis Khan doesn't stop Stalin being Stalin or Mao being Mao. They all answer for themselves. And Marx is the worst of the bunch, since he made the bloodiest creed in human history possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your quote mining fails to support your accusations. Is that the best you can do? By revolutionary standards, Marx's calls to violence are not extreme.

As for the et tu quoque nonsense, I was supporting my notion that Jesus is not to blame for witch killings and Inquisitions, just as Marx is not to blame for murderous purges. Do you disagree? Should we blame Jesus for the tortures and killings done in His name? That appears to be your position.

Christianity [Gospels as Constitution] is an absolutely pacifist religion;
1. -do not kill humans
2. -love all your enemies, give the other check, forgive them,
are categorical imperatives and overriding over others,
or else hell awaits.

Marx's calls to violence are not extreme.

As noted, Marx provide options for violence and killing of humans.
The problem with Marxism [& others of the same] is there are no definition of absolute There are no categorical imperatives as a control.

In the case of Islam, Muslims can exterminate the human species with cheap and easily accessible WMDs and they will be highly rewarded in paradise in comparison to ordinary Muslims. The reality is, some percentile of Muslims will do it as commanded by God, even though God is not real.

[Alexiev]

Torqemada was reputed to be an excellent theologian,

That's one seriously low bar of "excellent" you've got there. The wrongness of that claim can be tested against the words of Christ Himself. We don't need to guess.

But let Torquemada be whatever you want, from Pope to the Queen of England, and it says nothing about Marx, and even less about Marxism. That's an et tu quoque fallacy, in any event. Ghengis Khan being Ghengis Khan doesn't stop Stalin being Stalin or Mao being Mao. They all answer for themselves. And Marx is the worst of the bunch, since he made the bloodiest creed in human history possible.

Your critique of Marx condemns Jesus. If Marx is guilty of the sins committed in his name, so is Jesus. Your idiotic repetition of the numbers of dead is irrelevant. Are the airmen of the Enola Gay the worst mass murderers in the world? Didn't God himself slaughter all humans but Noah and his family? Is burning heretics at the stake acceptable because the Communists killed more people than Torquemada?

To justify the sins of your own fellow travelers by saying. "The communists were worse" is the most nonsensical argument even so incapable a logician as you have made. To blame Marx for the sins of his acolytes is exactly analogous to blaming Jesus for the sins of his.

I refuse to engage in the facile quote mining so beloved by you. But Torquemada justified burning heretics biblically, and so could I, or you, if we so desired.

I suppose if Marx and Jesus are guilty, we must absolve Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Torquemada. They were only following orders.

[Immanuel Can]

Your critique of Marx condemns Jesus.

I don't believe you even think that's true. It's too obviously absurd. Such an argument strains the bounds of common sense past the breaking point. You're not a fool; and I'm certain you can see how absurd such a suggestion is. All it takes is basic common sense.

If Marx is guilty of the sins committed in his name, so is Jesus.

As you surely know, a person is condemnable for what he said, not what he spoke against. He's responsible for those who followed him obediently, never for those who grossly disobeyed him and refused to do what he taught them. Common sense again. Moreover, a man is not a Christian just because he says he is, if indeed Torquemada ever claimed he was anything but a Catholic. He's a Christian only if he follows Christ; and that's definitional.

Torquemada, a Catholic (See https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html) is said by encyclopedia.com to have responsibility for the deaths of 2,000 people, allegedly. Let's say that's true, and we can put every one of those on him. That's one-seventy-thousanth of the people known to be killed as a result of Marx. Meanwhile, Marx taught evil and caused evil; his followers, the Marxists, do exactly what he taught them to do, which is to create perpetual, violent revolution.

And the number killed by those obeying Jesus? 0. Not a one. And countless millions saved from misery and death by the ethics and practices of Jesus, and by His followers, who have established charities, hospitals, addiction-relief programs, schools, personal freedoms, international aid programs, universities, poverty-relief organizations, prison reforms...and so on, as a result of His teachings. Not so by Marx: dialectical materialists are myopically devoted to creating their "utopia" at any cost, not on relieving suffering.

And you think you can draw a parallel? You haven't 'got a prayer' of making that case.

Your...repetition of the numbers of dead is irrelevant.

140 million dead are "irrelevant" to you? I doubt it. If it were true, you'd be somebody who would excuse anything...for there's nothing worse ever done that you could possibly have left to excuse. Nobody's killed so many people. The blood is all on Marx's hands, by the same logic by which you condemn the Catholic inquisitor, Torquemada.

You're swimming upstream against all logic, all history, all that Marx himself said, and all the facts. Not buying it.