Christianity is a violent religion

[godelian]

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

Yes. There's actually no choice in that regard.

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

I would not agree to the eradication of any other religion. There is no obvious need for that. They don't try to force their obnoxious views onto me. Christianity needed to learn a lesson, and in my opinion, they still need to today.

[Skepdick]

Yes. There's actually no choice in that regard.

Cool, so every Aparatchik's for the taking? Including you?

I would not agree to the eradication of any other religion. There is no obvious need for that. They don't try to force their obnoxious views onto me.

Ah, so your ideological violence is non-forceful? Go figure.

Christianity needed to learn a lesson, and in my opinion, they still need to today.

And who's going to teach you, teacher?

[godelian]

And who's going to teach you, teacher?

Voltaire already did. The Christian clergy needed to be "crushed", “Écrasez l'infâme”. The French Revolutionaries did. The Russian Revolutionaries did again. I am just pointing out that the job is not finished yet. Some more crushing seems to be needed.

[Skepdick]

Voltaire already did. The Christian clergy needed to be "crushed", “Écrasez l'infâme”. The French Revolutionaries did. The Russian Revolutionaries did again. I am just pointing out that the job is not finished yet. Some more crushing seems to be needed.

Yeah, I propose we begin by crushing all these crushers.

While we are at it, lets also crush the crusher-crushers, and the crusher-crusher-crushers.

Something tells me your strategy is fucked.

[godelian]

Voltaire already did. The Christian clergy needed to be "crushed", “Écrasez l'infâme”. The French Revolutionaries did. The Russian Revolutionaries did again. I am just pointing out that the job is not finished yet. Some more crushing seems to be needed.

Yeah, I propose we begin by crushing all these crushers.

While we are at it, lets also crush the crusher-crushers, and the crusher-crusher-crushers.

Something tells me your strategy is fucked.

The French and Russian Revolutionaries did an amazing job. I admire them for it. These people are heroes.

A legitimate and successful revolution must always include the complete eradication of Christianity. If the revolutionary ideology fails to include it, then it means that they failed to read Voltaire.

The revolutionary strategy has worked really well up till now, thanks to the French republic and the former Soviet Union. The rest of the revolutionary doctrine is actually irrelevant. People like Marx have turned out to be irrelevant. Voltaire has not, however. "Écrasez l'infâme" is what a good revolution should be about.

[attofishpi]

A legitimate and successful revolution must always include the complete eradication of Christianity.

..and wot would the muzzlem prophet Christ have to say about that?

[Skepdick]

The French and Russian Revolutionaries did an amazing job. I admire them for it. These people are heroes.

A legitimate and successful revolution must always include the complete eradication of Christianity. If the revolutionary ideology fails to include it, then it means that they failed to read Voltaire.

The revolutionary strategy has worked really well up till now, thanks to the French republic and the former Soviet Union. The rest of the revolutionary doctrine is actually irrelevant. People like Marx have turned out to be irrelevant. Voltaire has not, however. "Écrasez l'infâme" is what a good revolution should be about.

I'm certainly warming up the idea that the best revolutionaries are dead ones...

Écrasez l'infâme wasn't a cry for violence but denunciation against the abuse of power. Precisely the sort of abuse a hired gun carrying out state-sanctioned executions against ideological enemies would be engaging in.

Voltaire would've actually sided with the Christians in Russia. He was vehemently against using state power to enforce ideological orthodoxy or punish ideological dissent. Way to become the devil you hate.

You have the uncanny ability for misunderstand power dynamics...

[godelian]

Voltaire would've actually sided with the Christians in Russia.

You confuse the Christians with the Christian clergy. The Soviet OGPU and the French Revolutionary Directoire crushed the Christian clergy because they knew that this was necessary. Voltaire would not have sided with the Christian clergy. The Christian clergy had happily persecuted Voltaire. Now it was their turn to enjoy the unwanted attention.

[godelian]

A legitimate and successful revolution must always include the complete eradication of Christianity.

..and wot would the muzzlem prophet Christ have to say about that?

Christian doctrine has pretty much nothing to do with the person of Christ or his ministry.

Did Christ ever say that a man must turn all his personal earnings into marital liabilities? That is just one more invention by the Christian clergy, which they insist on seeing enforced on non-Christians as well.

Google AI: Does a man need to spend all his income on nafaqah?

No, a husband is not obligated to spend all his income on his wife and family; he is required to provide for their necessities according to his means, but he is not expected to squander his entire income.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Nafaqah (Financial Support):

In Islamic teachings, "Nafaqah" refers to the financial responsibility a husband has towards his wife and children, ensuring their basic needs are met.

Obligation, Not Extravagance:

While a husband is obligated to provide for his family, this obligation is not absolute and does not mean he must spend all his income.

Spending According to Means:

The Quran and Islamic scholars emphasize that a husband should spend according to his means and capacity.

Necessities vs. Wants:

The primary focus of nafaqah is to cover the essential needs of the family, such as food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities.

Balance and Moderation:

Islamic teachings encourage moderation and avoid extravagance or excessive spending.

Wife's Contribution:

Some Islamic scholars suggest that if a wife is employed and contributes financially, it may be considered acceptable for her to contribute to household expenses, and the husband's nafaqah may be adjusted accordingly.

Divorce and Nafaqah:

If a divorce occurs, the husband is still responsible for providing for his wife's maintenance (Nafaqah) during the "iddah" period, which is a period of waiting after the divorce.

The utterly misguided and clearly imbecile Christian clergy insists that the totality of a man's earnings are to be considered "nafaqah", and encourages the ruling state to enforce this view on Christians and non-Christians alike.

The same holds true for paying alimony beyond the "iddah" period. That is simply some more Christian bullshit.

Now, the next question is: Would Muslims accept job offers at a resurrected 6th Department of the Soviet OGPU in order to solve the problem?

This question is difficult to answer. I would have to ask for jurisprudential advice from the ulema.

I am personally inclined to accept the job offer, join the revolutionary OGPU department, and to rigorously assist in eradicating Christianity, but if the consensus ("ijmah") of the ulema ("scholars") is that it is haram to do so, I would unfortunately have to resign from the OGPU later on. That would be quite a disappointment, because I personally believe in the mission statement of the OGPU and in the excellent work that they are doing, and that they have always done.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Voltaire would've actually sided with the Christians in Russia.

You confuse the Christians with the Christian clergy. The Soviet OGPU and the French Revolutionary Directoire crushed the Christian clergy because they knew that this was necessary. Voltaire would not have sided with the Christian clergy. The Christian clergy had happily persecuted Voltaire. Now it was their turn to enjoy the unwanted attention.

We are doing philosophy in this forum so we have to be rigorous [extremely thorough, precise, detailed and careful].

I have been accusing you of conflating Christianity [the ideology] with the Christian clergy and Christians [human beings].

The essence of a religion, e.g. Christianity is its 'Constituted' Ideology.

Christianity, the religion, ideology [represented only by the Gospels] is a pacifist religion.
Islam, the religion, ideology [represented by the Quran alone] is inherently evil albeit it has positive elements.

Christians, Muslims are human beings and has their percentile of good [majority] the bad and evil prone [say 10%] with a Normal Distribution.
The Clergy of the above religions comprised on human beings.

To be precise;

You can only blame the bad and evil Christians doing bad things based on their human nature, but you cannot blame Christianity the ideology because the ideology in essence is a pacifist religion.

On the other hand we can blame Islam itself [which is inherently bad and evil] for the evil acts committed by the percentile of bad and evil prone Muslims.
The majority of Muslims are good human beings and thus cannot be influenced by the evil elements within the ideology they adopted for soteriological reasons.

Re imposing their beliefs on others; at present the worst culprits are the bad and evil prone Muslims. This is so evident with evidences from the internet at present.
The bad and evil Christians did that in the past but at the present most of them had been stripped of political powers.

Ultimately I believe all religions [theistic and non-theistic] need to be weaned off in the future [next 100 years or >] and the priority is Islam to be replaced by foolproof self-developments programs that are guided by morality-proper.

[godelian]

You can only blame the bad and evil Christians doing bad things based on their human nature, but you cannot blame Christianity the ideology because the ideology in essence is a pacifist religion.

I agree with the French and Russian Revolutionaries that Christianity is essentially a violent but also imbecile ideology that needs to be eradicated.

That is why I fundamentally approve of the mission statement of the Soviet OGPU which was to burn churches and mass execute Christian clergy.

[attofishpi]

You can only blame the bad and evil Christians doing bad things based on their human nature, but you cannot blame Christianity the ideology because the ideology in essence is a pacifist religion.

I agree with the French and Russian Revolutionaries that Christianity is essentially a violent but also imbecile ideology that needs to be eradicated.

That is why I fundamentally approve of the mission statement of the Soviet OGPU which was to burn churches and mass execute Christian clergy.

Owe, look..a Muzzlem preaching violence and too stupid to comprehend the irony of the thread title.

Were your parents C_O_U_sins too?


..imagine if I preached such violence against Imams - Rick Lewis would kick me in a short-sighted heartbeat.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can only blame the bad and evil Christians doing bad things based on their human nature, but you cannot blame Christianity the ideology because the ideology in essence is a pacifist religion.

I agree with the French and Russian Revolutionaries that Christianity is essentially a violent but also imbecile ideology that needs to be eradicated.

That is why I fundamentally approve of the mission statement of the Soviet OGPU which was to burn churches and mass execute Christian clergy.

I agree there were many Christians in the past whose practices in exploiting Christianity within a Clergy with political powers were abominable.
Even at present, we still have extremist Christians interpreting and abusing Christianity in an evil manner, but their evil acts are not as abominable than those of the evil-prone Muslims acting in the name [as permitted] of religion.
The evil acts of these evil prone Christians has nothing to do with the ideology of Christianity-proper which is grounded on the Gospels only and is overridingly pacifist.

Your "Christianity is essentially a violent but also imbecile ideology" is a misrepresentation of facts.
You need to justify [prove] with evidences and arguments how the ideology of Christianity is evil, violent and imbecile.

You are focusing on the past, i.e. French and Russian Revolutions; at present there is no serious aggressions nor banning against religions [including Christianity] in France and Communist countries.

[godelian]

Owe, look..a Muzzlem preaching violence and too stupid to comprehend the irony of the thread title.

I agree with the French Revolutionaries and how they handled the problem of the Christian clergy.
I also agree with the Russian Revolutionaries and how they handled the problem of the Christian clergy.
These revolutionaries correctly implemented what Voltaire had advocated: "écrasez l'infâme" or "crush the infamous".
This had nothing to do with Islam. Neither the French nor the Russian revolutionaries justified their actions based on the Quran.

[attofishpi]

Owe, look..a Muzzlem preaching violence and too stupid to comprehend the irony of the thread title.

I agree with the French Revolutionaries and how they handled the problem of the Christian clergy.
I also agree with the Russian Revolutionaries and how they handled the problem of the Christian clergy.
These revolutionaries correctly implemented what Voltaire had advocated: "écrasez l'infâme" or "crush the infamous".
This had nothing to do with Islam. Neither the French nor the Russian revolutionaries justified their actions based on the Quran.

Owe look. A Muzzlem that's too stupid to distinguish when someone (moi) is talking to HIM as a Muzzlem, or when (moi) is talking about HIS daft bollocks called Islame.

C_O_U_sins for parents me thinks.

PS. They were atheists