Christianity is a violent religion

[godelian]

Civil marriage and therefore Christian marriage is a misleading, deceptive, and violent scam

No man considers all his personal earnings to be marital earnings. Even Christian men typically do not.

A man is typically willing to contribute financially to the household but only with some part of his personal earnings. The remainder is and remains his own personal property.

There is no mainstream religion besides Christianity that insists that all personal earnings would be marital earnings.

Islam does not. Hinduism does not. Buddhism does not.

Only Christianity does.

The Christians have corrupted secular law to reflect their misguided Christian doctrine, which subsequently gets enforced against non-Christians.

This practice is a detestable form of Christian violence against non-Christians.

Christianity is violent.

That is why violence against Christians is so prevalent. The French and the Russian revolutions sought to eradicate Christianity. The next revolution will inevitably do that again.

[Flannel Jesus]

What a wild stretch lmao.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your OP is a very bad argument. Christianity in essence is a pacifist religion like Buddhism, Jainism and others. When Christians as human beings commit evil acts it is not in the name of Jesus or God.

I wrote here:
posting.php?mode=edit&p=653810

Thesis: The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
Nb: Most Effective at present [not future], not most realistic nor objective.

While I have argued,
It is Impossible for God to be Real i.e. it is an illusion.
viewtopic.php?t=40229
Whilst God is an illusion, is a useful illusion.

The idea of God is useful illusion as a balm that will immediate soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

In addition, the Christianity model of moral FSK with its overriding pacifist maxis of 'love all, even enemies' is the most effective in terms of meeting the intended utilities of morality per se since it first emerged and even at PRESENT [not necessary in the future].

Morality-proper is essentially the managing [ideally to eliminate ALL] of evil acts to facilitate its corresponding goods.
What is most evil is related to the killing of human beings by human beings.
Islam permit the killing of non-believers upon the slightest fasad 5:33 which motivate the critical minority [10% = 150-200 million ) to comply with this dictate. This is so evident i.e. >46,500 incidents with fatalities committed by Islamists in the name of the religion since 911.

A Christian is one who have had entered into a CONTRACT [actually divine covenant] with Jesus on behalf of God.
As such, a Christian-proper must comply with all the terms of the Contract within the best of his abilities.
The terms of the divine Contract is confine to the words of Jesus which is only within the Gospels, not Acts, Epistles nor the OT [abrogated].
Any non-compliance to the terms of the Contract will cause the Christian to sin with a threat of going to eternal hell with eternal hell-fire.
To avoid this terrible threat, Christian will make it a point to comply with the terms of the contract.

The critical term re morality is 'love all, even enemies' which implies Christians cannot kill, harm nor commit violence on all humans.
When Christians driven by fear of God comply with the God' maxim 'love all, even enemies' the will fulfil the avoidance of the most evil acts within morality, i.e. killing of humans by humans.

As such in theory, the Christian moral FSK is potentially the most efficient moral FSK at present.
So far, there is no evidence of Christians killing humans in the name or under the command of Jesus/God from the Gospels.

There are Christians who kill humans, [e.g. the Crusades and elsewhere] but they are doing based on the own personal will and discretion, and not because Christianity commands them as Christians to do so and as a divine duty. In this case, we cannot blame the religion. We can only blame the individual Christians for committing evil acts in their personal capacity.

There will be Christians who has to kill to defend their religion or for other just acts.
This has nothing to do with Christianity per se, but rather it is that the Christian had not complied with God's maxim to 'love all, even enemies'.
In this case, they have sinned in the eyes of God and they can only hope for God's forgiveness for their sins for acting justly.

Since there is no evidence of Christians killing humans in the name or under the command of Jesus/God from the Gospels, and many intended killing of humans would have negated by the terrible threat of hellfire.

In contrast, all other models of moral FSKs [theistic and non-theistic] which are ideal and most evil [e.g. Islam] are not effective in meeting the objectives of morality-proper.
The most ideal moral FSK at present is that from Buddhism, but it is not effective because the majority of Buddhists could not tap into the potential of Buddhism-proper based on their present psychological states.

At present [not future] the Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective and optimal in relation of the current psychological states of the majority.
However, Christianity has it other negative baggage.

The current reality is humanity is evolving at a fast pace in terms of information, knowledge and technology, plus the individual self-development.
With the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and Technology [IT and others] the negative baggage [cons] of Christianity is progressively outweighing its pros.

Toward the future, humanity must recognized credible, reliable and objective moral facts so that moral progress can be grounded and progress expeditiously. This is why I am arguing or moral objectivity based on objective moral facts from a human-based moral FSR-FSK.

Any counter to my thesis;
The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present [not future]?

[godelian]

What a wild stretch lmao.

The following person, Yevgeny Tuchkov, was a hero of the revolution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Tuchkov

Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov (Russian Евгений Александрович Тучков) was a Soviet state security officer and the head of the anti-religious department of the Soviet OGPU.

From 1922 to 1929 Tuchkov headed the sixth secret department of the OGPU which targeted the Russian Orthodox Church during the 1920s.

During this period, Tuchkov orchestrated a campaign of persecution against the church which included the mass arrests and executions of clergy.

I look up to people like Tuchkov. I admire these people. They don't just talk. No, they actually solve the problem.

[godelian]

Your OP is a very bad argument. Christianity in essence is a pacifist religion like Buddhism, Jainism and others. When Christians as human beings commit evil acts it is not in the name of Jesus or God.

This was certainly not the opinion of the Joint State Political Directorate (Russian: Объединённое государственное политическое управление) of the Soviet Union. I may disagree with the Communists on quite a few topics but not on the subject of Christianity.

[Flannel Jesus]

What a wild stretch lmao.

The following person, Yevgeny Tuchkov, was a hero of the revolution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Tuchkov

Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov (Russian Евгений Александрович Тучков) was a Soviet state security officer and the head of the anti-religious department of the Soviet OGPU.

From 1922 to 1929 Tuchkov headed the sixth secret department of the OGPU which targeted the Russian Orthodox Church during the 1920s.

During this period, Tuchkov orchestrated a campaign of persecution against the church which included the mass arrests and executions of clergy.

I look up to people like Tuchkov. I admire these people. They don't just talk. No, they actually solve the problem.

I don't understand why you quoted me, and then said all that. What did any of that have to do with what you quoted from me?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your OP is a very bad argument. Christianity in essence is a pacifist religion like Buddhism, Jainism and others. When Christians as human beings commit evil acts it is not in the name of Jesus or God.

This was certainly not the opinion of the Joint State Political Directorate (Russian: Объединённое государственное политическое управление) of the Soviet Union. I may disagree with the Communists on quite a few topics but not on the subject of Christianity.

Where is your argument?
What is the Joint State Political Directorate's argument that "Christianity is a violent religion"?

It is true many "Christians" have done bad things but these 'Christians' were not doing evil in the name of Christianity, Christ nor God, rather they did those evil acts as evil human beings and abusing Christianity with politics.

On the other hand, when SOME [from the critical minority of 10%=150 million] Muslims committed terrible evil acts, they were contractually [covenantedly - Mithaq] bound to do so in complying with the terms of their agreement with God. e.g. 5:33, 2:216 9:29, 9:111 and few hundreds of other verses related to Allah condoning evil upon non-believers.

• 2:216. Warfare [QTL: l-qitālu, fighting] is ordained for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you...

[Fairy]

Non-violence is violence.

Infinity with a twist.

[godelian]

Where is your argument?
What is the Joint State Political Directorate's argument that "Christianity is a violent religion"?

Christianity seeks to impose its views onto non-Christians by corrupting secular law.

If you want to impose your views onto others, that is fine, but then prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.

Therefore, the Joint State Political Directorate of the Soviet Union was absolutely right that they were not going to discuss, debate, or negotiate, but instead, were going to attack and destroy. I fully support their policy.

[Skepdick]

I look up to people like Tuchkov. I admire these people. They don't just talk. No, they actually solve the problem.

You admire problem-solvers, don't you? Tell us more about your admiration of die Endlösung.

If you want to impose your views onto others, that is fine, but then prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.

OK so, go and martyr yourself to prove that you really believe it. Bonus points: the people who you are otherwise willing to violently subjugate won't have to risk their lives defending themselves against you.

Everybody loves a self-solving problem.

[godelian]

[the people who you are otherwise willing to violently subjugate won't have to risk their lives defending themselves against you.

I am not interested in subjugating anyone. I am not even against Christians applying their imbecile doctrine to just themselves. I am against them imposing their retarded views onto non-Christians.

The Christians won't stop doing that.

Therefore, I fully agree with the policy of the OGPU to eradicate Christianity from the Soviet Union. That was the only way to solve the problem.

OK so, go and martyr yourself to prove that you really believe it.

I would indeed happily accept a job at the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and work for Yevgeny Tuchkov (Евгений Тучков). I do not believe, however, that the job is particularly dangerous or that there is much of a risk to be martyred. The job mostly consists in burning churches and gunning down clergy. So, tell me, what is even the risk? Furthermore, the job comes with state-funded retirement benefits. The job is also perfectly compatible with my own views. So, why on earth would I reject the job offer?

[Skepdick]

I am not interested in subjugating anyone.

Really, so where is all this admiration of genocide against Christians coming from?

I am not even against Christians applying their imbecile doctrine to just themselves. I am against them imposing their retarded views onto non-Christians.

The Christians won't stop doing that.

Shame, you seem maladapted to how societies work.

It's always going to be somebody's doctrine filling any doctrinal vacuum.

The only question is whether doctrine should spread organically (bottom up); or forcefully (top down).

Therefore, I fully agree with the policy of the OGPU to eradicate Christianity from the Soviet Union. That was the only way to solve the problem.

So the way to solve the problem was to forcefuly eradicate Christian doctrine and replace it Communist/State atheist doctrine?

Given that your doctrine is also a problem. How should we solve you? Using similar tactics? Because if subjugation is the only language you speak I'll gladly speak it to you, bootlicker.

I would indeed happily accept a job at the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and work for Yevgeny Tuchkov (Евгений Тучков). I do not believe, however, that the job is particularly dangerous or that there is much of a risk to be martyred. The job mostly consists in burning churches and gunning down clergy. So, tell me, what is even the risk? Furthermore, the job comes with state-funded retirement benefits. The job is also perfectly compatible with my own views. So, why on earth would I reject the job offer?

You seem to have misunderstood me.

If you are willing to die for your beliefs...go and die. By your own hand. To prove that you really believe that.
Otherwise, what you really wanted to say is that you are willing to kill for your beliefs. And even more specifically - you are willing to kill others who pose merely doctrinal, but not a physical threat to you.

Which, of course - is just a dogwhistle for "I'll gladly spread my own doctrine using violence"

Have you considered therapy for your inability to cope with your anger management issues?

[godelian]

Really, so where is all this admiration of genocide against Christians coming from?

The policy was limited to executing the Christian clergy and burning down churches. The Soviets would not execute someone just for being deluded by Christian doctrine. As we can all understand, eradicating the clergy was sufficient.

Furthermore, the Soviets could use the experience of the French Revolutionaries in that regard:

Google AI

During the French Revolution, the clergy, particularly those who refused to swear allegiance to the new revolutionary government, faced persecution, including exile, imprisonment, and even execution, as part of a broader effort to de-Christianize France.

Here's a more detailed look at the persecution of clergy during the French Revolution:

Anti-Clericalism and the Revolution:

The French Revolution initially saw attacks on church corruption and the wealth of the higher clergy, actions that resonated with many, even Christians, who saw the Catholic Church as having a dominant role in pre-revolutionary France.

Suppression of the Church:

The revolutionary authorities suppressed the Church, abolished the Catholic monarchy, nationalized church property, and exiled thousands of priests.

The Reign of Terror:

During the Reign of Terror, anti-clericalism became particularly violent, with many priests being executed or forced into exile.

Dechristianization Efforts:

The revolutionaries sought to replace the traditional religion with a new civic religion, the Cult of Reason, and churches were closed, and priests were forced to resign or emigrate.

Civil Constitution of the Clergy:

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which required priests to swear an oath of loyalty to the state, led to a split within the clergy, with those who refused the oath facing persecution and exile.

Forced Abdication and Marriage:

Under threat of death, imprisonment, and loss of income, many priests were forced to abdicate and hand over their letters of ordination, and some were coerced into marriage.

Destruction of Churches:

Many churches were closed, sold, destroyed, or converted to other uses, with few remaining open by Easter 1794.

Refractory Clergy:

Refractory clergy, meaning those who refused to swear allegiance to the revolutionary government, faced the guillotine or deportation to French Guiana.

The Rochefort Martyrs:

The Rochefort martyrs were a group of priests who were imprisoned and later executed during the Reign of Terror for refusing to renounce their faith.

I also fully support the policy of the French Revolution in this regard.

Otherwise, what you really wanted to say is that you are willing to kill for your beliefs.

Wait a minute. I don't do anything for free.

Also not killing particular designated enemies of the existing regime. I would still charge a hefty fee, which the regime would have to pay on a regular basis. As an executioner, I charge for every single execution. Only the sun goes up for free in this world.

You completely misunderstands how these things work. It is not because I gladly do my job and intensely enjoy it that I would agree to do it for free. I don't do anything for free.

[Impenitent]

human followers of any ideology have the capacity for violence

-Imp

[Skepdick]

The policy was limited to executing the Christian clergy and burning down churches.

Ok, so we'll limit our policy to executing only Apparatchiks

Wait a minute. I don't do anything for free.

Also not killing particular designated enemies of the existing regime. I would still charge a hefty fee, which the regime would have to pay on a regular basis. As an executioner, I charge for every single execution. Only the sun goes up for free in this world.

You completely misunderstands how these things work. It is not because I gladly do my job and intensely enjoy it that I would agree to do it for free. I don't do anything for free.

Ah, well that makes it better! So which regimes won't you accept payment from?

How much would the Clergy have to pay you to turn on your puppetmasters?

Exact same job. They just define "the problem" differently.