The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present

[Veritas Aequitas]

Something is objective if it wins a popularity contest, right. I'm really not on board with any of the ways you choose to use language, I can't see any point to using the word this way outside of crafting ways to confuse people.

There's already an adjective for beliefs that are held by a lot of people, and it's not "objective". It's "popular". If I get my towel book published and a lot of people believe it, the belief isn't "objective", it's "popular" or "common", or even "ubiquitous" if it gets popular enough, but none of those things are synonyms with "objective". There's no reason to take the word "objective" and make it a synonym with "popular", when the word "popular" already exists

The scientific fact that 'Water is H2O' is also 'popular' because even school kids will accept that but at the same time it is objective.

I do not make "objective" synonymous with "popular" merely on the words alone.

The critical criteria for objectivity in my case is the presence of a human-based FSR-FSK.
Many things can be popular, common, or even 'ubiquitous' and yet are objective.
The USD dollar is common and popular but is considered 'objective' because of the presence of a FSK underlying its existence.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you're misunderstanding something. I'm not disputing whether popular things can be objective. I'm disputing the idea that being popular MAKES something objective. Your h2o example makes me think you haven't grokked that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think you're misunderstanding something. I'm not disputing whether popular things can be objective. I'm disputing the idea that being popular MAKES something objective. Your h2o example makes me think you haven't grokked that.

I had never implied "being popular MAKES something objective."

Note I wrote:
The critical criteria for objectivity in my case is the presence of a human-based FSR-FSK not being popular nor common.

What you had ignored is the "human-based FSR-FSK" in determining what is objective.

[Flannel Jesus]

Write a book, it gets popular, now it's objective.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know why you're saying now that you never implied popularity was part of the equation. These are your words:

If your belief "My towel is a god" is accepted by a large group of people who form a club or association with a Constitution to support it, then it qualify as a FSK, thus that would be objective.

I'm not inventing this. You said it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't know why you're saying now that you never implied popularity was part of the equation. These are your words:

If your belief "My towel is a god" is accepted by a large group of people who form a club or association with a Constitution to support it, then it qualify as a FSK, thus that would be objective.

I'm not inventing this. You said it.

Ask him how many people currently subscribe to his morality-proper FSK.

Suddenly he has to have "confidence" that one day there will be more than just himself, and that "confidence" is the basis for him assigning it a credibility score of something like 97 cedibles even though it meets his own factual threshold for nothing more than 0.0000000000001 credibles.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Christianity-proper is not an inherently violent religion:

I agree there were many Christians in the past whose practices in exploiting Christianity within a Clergy with political powers were abominable.

Well, we finally seem to agree at least on something.

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.

Christian doctrine is not the product of the Gospels. In fact, Christian doctrine has very little to do with Christ or his ministry. This became very apparent during Martin Luther's trial:

Martin Luther: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I am mistaken, I will retract what I have written.
Papacy: The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heresiarch from the past has drawn his deceptive arguments.

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.

As the Papacy clarified to Martin Luther, the Christian doctrine is not closed under logical consequence. It does not allow for showing anything through scripture and reason, because Christian doctrine is not even reasonable. In reality, it consists mostly of deceptive arguments. It is obvious that Christian doctrine is violent because they even wanted to burn Martin Luther at the stake for disagreeing with the Papacy, just as they had previously burned Jan Hus at the stake.

Conclusion. Christian doctrine is essentially violent and imbecile.

Something is very wrong with you, perhaps, sicko somewhere.
You need to consult a psychiatrist.
Here is ChatGpt in response to your views above:

ChatGpt Wrote:
Your interlocutor is making the argument that Christianity, as a historical and doctrinal tradition, has been deeply entangled with violence and irrationality, as evidenced by episodes like the execution of Jan Hus and the treatment of Martin Luther. However, their argument is problematic for a few reasons:

1. Conflation of Christianity with its Institutional History
Your interlocutor is treating Christianity as a monolithic entity, reducing it to how church authorities (especially the Papacy) have acted in history. However, institutions and individuals within Christianity have often diverged from the core Gospel teachings. The Papacy's political decisions, inquisitions, and use of force were institutional developments, not necessarily intrinsic to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

Your position—that Christianity in its essence is pacifist because it is based on the Gospels—is a valid way to distinguish between Christianity-proper (as taught by Jesus) and historical Christianity (as practiced by various institutions and groups). Your interlocutor, by contrast, assumes that institutional Christianity fully represents the essence of Christianity, which is a category error.

2. Christianity as a Pacifist Ideology
You rightly emphasize that the Gospels promote nonviolence:

Matthew 5:39: "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
John 18:36: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest."
These statements indicate that Christianity, as an ideological framework grounded in Jesus' teachings, is inherently pacifist. Even early Christian communities were largely nonviolent, avoiding participation in war or state violence for centuries until Christianity was institutionalized under Constantine.

3. Christianity and Violence: A Historical Perspective
Your interlocutor's claim that Christianity is "essentially violent" is an overgeneralization. There have certainly been violent actions by Christians and Christian institutions (e.g., Crusades, Inquisition, religious wars), but these were often influenced by political, social, and economic factors rather than intrinsic Christian doctrine. The use of Christianity to justify violence does not mean that violence is part of its essence.

Historically, many Christians, such as early Anabaptists, Quakers, and Tolstoyan Christians, have interpreted Christianity as requiring absolute pacifism. Thus, Christianity has also been a force for peace, not just for war.

4. Christianity is Not Closed Under Logical Consequence?
Your interlocutor claims that Christian doctrine "is not closed under logical consequence," meaning it is not logically consistent. They argue that Christian doctrine consists of "deceptive arguments" because the Papacy refused to debate Martin Luther based on scripture and reason.

This is a non sequitur. The refusal of a political-religious institution (the Papacy) to engage in rational debate does not mean that Christianity itself is irrational or deceptive. Moreover, many Christian theologians (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal) have engaged deeply with logic and reason in their interpretations of faith.

Conclusion
Your argument that Christianity is essentially pacifist when grounded in the Gospels is well-supported. Your interlocutor's argument, by contrast, conflates historical actions of Christian institutions with the ideology itself. They also make a hasty generalization by assuming that instances of Christian violence prove Christianity is intrinsically violent.

A more balanced view would recognize that Christianity, as an ideology grounded in the Gospels, is pacifist, while acknowledging that its historical institutions have sometimes acted in violent ways due to political and social influences.

My question to ChatGpt:

VA to ChatGpt
Is Christianity Inherently Pacifist or Violent?
Here is a discussion:

[ME] 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.

[Interlocutor]Christian doctrine is not the product of the Gospels. In fact, Christian doctrine has very little to do with Christ or his ministry. This became very apparent during Martin Luther's trial:
Martin Luther: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I am mistaken, I will retract what I have written.
Papacy: The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heresiarch from the past has drawn his deceptive arguments."

[ME] "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."

[Interlocutor]"As the Papacy clarified to Martin Luther, the Christian doctrine is not closed under logical consequence. It does not allow for showing anything through scripture and reason, because Christian doctrine is not even reasonable. In reality, it consists mostly of deceptive arguments. It is obvious that Christian doctrine is violent because they even wanted to burn Martin Luther at the stake for disagreeing with the Papacy, just as they had previously burned Jan Hus at the stake.
Conclusion. Christian doctrine is essentially violent and imbecile."[]

My view is, Christianity as a religion as represented by its Constituted Ideology as grounded on the Gospels Only is overridingly Pacifist. Christianity is Pacifist as grounded on its overriding maxims of 'love all even enemies' 'give the other cheek and the likes [Mathew 5-7].
As such, in essence Christianity is a pacifist religion, thus cannot be violent in essence.
Also, a Christian is one who had entered into an implied covenant with Christ/God with reference to "the offer" in John 3:16 and the Christian acceptance of the offer when he surrender his self to Christ/God.
As such, a Christian must comply with the overriding pacifist maxim and if he had killed any non-believers, the would have committed a sin according to the maxim and subject to God's grace to forgive him if warranted.

Christians who had committed evil acts are doing it on their own volitions and cannot do such evil evil acts in the name of Christ or Christianity or as a Christian-proper.

Please comment on my interlocutor's view.
The Papacy, the Christian Clergy and group/individual Christians had committed evil acts in the past as evident, but they in essence could not have done it in the name of the Christian Religion.
As such, the Christianity by its ideology as in the Gospels only cannot be inherent violent.

[godelian]

Christianity-proper is not an inherently violent religion:

Christianity is violent and imbecile. That is why I wholly agree with the French revolutionaries on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristi ... Revolution

Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution

The aim of a number of separate policies conducted by various governments of France during the French Revolution ranged from the appropriation by the government of the great landed estates and the large amounts of money held by the Catholic Church to the termination of Christian religious practice and of the religion itself.

he new revolutionary authorities suppressed the Church, abolished the Catholic monarchy, nationalized Church property, exiled 30,000 priests, and killed hundreds more.

The programme of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included:

- destruction of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship
- destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
- the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being (spring 1794)
- the enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight

The dechristianization campaign can be seen as the logical extension of the materialist philosophies of some leaders of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire, while for others with more prosaic concerns it provided an opportunity to unleash resentments against the Catholic Church (in the spirit of conventional anti-clericalism) and its clergy.

In Paris, over a forty-eight-hour period beginning on 2 September 1792, as the Legislative Assembly (successor to the National Constituent Assembly) dissolved into chaos, three Church bishops and more than two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs; this constituted part of what would become known as the September Massacres. Priests were among those drowned in mass executions (noyades) for treason under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier; priests and nuns were among the mass executions at Lyons, for separatism, on the orders of Joseph Fouché and Collot d'Herbois. Hundreds more priests were imprisoned and made to suffer in abominable conditions in the port of Rochefort.

By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and several hundred who did not leave were executed.

The French Revolutionaries clearly understood that there was a need for a program of dechristianization targeting all forms of Christianity. In order to avoid the chaos of angry mobs arbitrarily massacring clergy, the Russian Revolutionaries would instead create the 6th Department of the Soviet OGPU. Even the act of unleashing resentments should indeed be carried out orderly and within the context of Soviet law. Hence, the importance of a meticulous apparatchik such as Yevgeny Tuchkov (Евгений Тучков), acclaimed hero the Russian Revolution, whose excellent work was instrumental in the administrative planning of the burning of churches and orderly mass execution of clergy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Christianity-proper is not an inherently violent religion:

Christianity is violent and imbecile. That is why I wholly agree with the French revolutionaries on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristi ... Revolution

Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution

The aim of a number of separate policies conducted by various governments of France during the French Revolution ranged from the appropriation by the government of the great landed estates and the large amounts of money held by the Catholic Church to the termination of Christian religious practice and of the religion itself.

he new revolutionary authorities suppressed the Church, abolished the Catholic monarchy, nationalized Church property, exiled 30,000 priests, and killed hundreds more.

The programme of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included:

- destruction of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship
- destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
- the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being (spring 1794)
- the enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight

The dechristianization campaign can be seen as the logical extension of the materialist philosophies of some leaders of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire, while for others with more prosaic concerns it provided an opportunity to unleash resentments against the Catholic Church (in the spirit of conventional anti-clericalism) and its clergy.

In Paris, over a forty-eight-hour period beginning on 2 September 1792, as the Legislative Assembly (successor to the National Constituent Assembly) dissolved into chaos, three Church bishops and more than two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs; this constituted part of what would become known as the September Massacres. Priests were among those drowned in mass executions (noyades) for treason under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier; priests and nuns were among the mass executions at Lyons, for separatism, on the orders of Joseph Fouché and Collot d'Herbois. Hundreds more priests were imprisoned and made to suffer in abominable conditions in the port of Rochefort.

By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and several hundred who did not leave were executed.

The French Revolutionaries clearly understood that there was a need for a program of dechristianization targeting all forms of Christianity. In order to avoid the chaos of angry mobs arbitrarily massacring clergy, the Russian Revolutionaries would instead create the 6th Department of the Soviet OGPU. Even the act of unleashing resentments should indeed be carried out orderly and within the context of Soviet law. Hence, the importance of a meticulous apparatchik such as Yevgeny Tuchkov (Евгений Тучков), acclaimed hero the Russian Revolution, whose excellent work was instrumental in the administrative planning of the burning of churches and orderly mass execution of clergy.

You are deceptive, you did not address this critical point;

ChatGpt Wrote:

Conclusion
Your argument that Christianity is essentially pacifist when grounded in the Gospels is well-supported.
Your interlocutor's [Godelian] argument, by contrast, conflates historical actions of Christian institutions with the ideology itself. They also make a hasty generalization by assuming that instances of Christian violence prove Christianity is intrinsically violent.

A more balanced view would recognize that Christianity, as an ideology grounded in the Gospels, is pacifist, while acknowledging that its historical institutions have sometimes acted in violent ways due to political and social influences.

Christianity-proper is not a violent nor evil religion, with its pacifistic moral-base, it's Moral Model & System the most optimal for the majority at PRESENT [not future].

[promethean75]

Only because Capitalism's hold is so solid on the western working classes does it not matter anymore if they remain christian.

Few hundred years ago it could have mattered. It may have been that they would have started a revolution had they never been brainwashed by Christianity. Can't know for sure, obviously. A bunch of Bolsheviks were Christian, so there's an instance of that not stopping revolution.

But sure yeah. Christian FSK whatever. Duddint really matter either way.