Christianity is a violent religion

[godelian]

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.

[attofishpi]

Conclusion. Christian doctrine is essentially violent and imbecile.

Provide any scripture of Christianity that supports your claim.

[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.

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

No, Voltaire was not atheist. Voltaire was monotheist without further scripture to specify what exactly he meant by that.

ChatGPT: Was Voltaire atheist?

Voltaire was not an atheist, but he was highly critical of organized religion, especially the Catholic Church. He was a deist, meaning he believed in a higher power or a creator but rejected religious dogma, superstition, and the authority of the church.

He famously said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him," which suggests he saw belief in God as useful for maintaining morality and social order, even if he was skeptical of religious institutions.

Voltaire often attacked religious intolerance and fanaticism, but he still believed in a rational, creator-like God rather than outright atheism.

The rejection of the authority of the church is actually a very Islamic belief. Islam rejects the very notion of "church" as centralized institution with a monopoly on interpretation. The following is strictly forbidden in Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition".[1][2][3] According to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the task of interpretation is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops,[4] though the concept has a complex history of development.

Voltaire's deism is an excellent starting point for what proper religion should be. But then again, if religion is to be useful for maintaining morality and social order, then it needs to specify what its rules are. That is why you can and should indeed get rid of the church but not of some written scripture to regulate the process of maintaining morality and social order. Hence, the need for an infallible document (and not for an infallible Pope).

[attofishpi]

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

No, Voltaire was not atheist. Voltaire was monotheist without further scripture to specify what exactly he meant by that.

I don't care about Voltaire. I did not state that Voltaire was atheist.

The fact that you support Christian clergymen being killed as a Muzzlem is the IRONY of this ridiculous thread.

[godelian]

The fact that you support Christian clergymen being killed as a Muzzlem is the IRONY of this ridiculous thread.

As I have already clarified, I am not sure -- at all -- that the ulema, i.e. the scholars, would approve of the policy by the French Revolutionary Directorate or by the Soviet OGPU. The only way to know, is to ask them for a jurisprudential ruling on the matter. If the ruling manages to achieve ijma, i.e. consensus amongst the scholars, I will adjust my own opinion to the ruling, on an ex tunc basis. In the meanwhile, in absence of aforementioned ruling, I will continue to praise these revolutionaries for their heroic efforts and their substantial sacrifices in solving an otherwise pernicious problem. It is obvious that someone had to do something. Well, the revolutionaries did. They rose to the challenge and rigorously solved the problem.

[attofishpi]

The fact that you support Christian clergymen being killed as a Muzzlem is the IRONY of this ridiculous thread.

As I have already clarified, I am not sure -- at all -- that the ulema, i.e. the scholars, would approve of the policy by the French Revolutionary Directorate or by the Soviet OGPU. The only way to know, is to ask them for a jurisprudential ruling on the matter. If the ruling manages to achieve ijma, i.e. consensus amongst the scholars, I will adjust my own opinion to the ruling, on an ex tunc basis. In the meanwhile, in absence of aforementioned ruling, I will continue to praise these revolutionaries for their heroic efforts and their substantial sacrifices in solving an otherwise pernicious problem. It is obvious that someone had to do something. Well, the revolutionaries did. They rose to the challenge and rigorously solved the problem.

My GOD U R weird. What timeframe is your BRAIN in?

So if the 'revolutionaries' rose to the challenge, then how come CHRISTIANITY is still the dominant religion and thriving in Russia and France?

[godelian]

So if the 'revolutionaries' rose to the challenge, then how come CHRISTIANITY is still the dominant religion and thriving in Russia and France?

Well, the chemotherapy seemed to initially have worked but the cancer apparently came back. That happens more often when the cancer has already metastasized. That is why the doctors may have to repeat the treatment. So, yes, where is the Soviet OGPU when we need them?

[Skepdick]

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.

And you are confusing the Christian clergy with state power; and the Christian clergy without state power.

Voltaire would've sided with the persecuted against the abuse of state power.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[attofishpi]

Conclusion. Christian doctrine is essentially violent and imbecile.

AGAIN:
Provide any scripture of Christianity that supports your claim.

[godelian]

Conclusion. Christian doctrine is essentially violent and imbecile.

AGAIN:
Provide any scripture of Christianity that supports your claim.

Christian doctrine is not scriptural. It is the product of inventions by its clergy. The result is not even closed under logical consequence. That is exactly what makes it imbecile.

Worms, Germany, 1521

Luther: if you can show me through scripture and reason that I am wrong, 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.

Christian doctrine is also violent because they tried to burn Luther at the stake for refusing to recant his views. In fact, they burned quite a few people at the stake for siding with Luther.

Google AI

The Reformation, a period of religious upheaval in the 16th and 17th centuries, led to significant violence and persecution, with events like the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and the French Wars of Religion resulting in widespread killings and displacement.

[promethean75]

Wasting time, G. I've already explained here that the reason christianity is no longer violently crusading around the world is because it's fully established itself in the west now and no longer needs brute force.

The opposite is the case for Islam. It is still to this day in a vicious battle over its native land and with the alliance of countries that betrayed them. Had it also established itself and was able to relax, there would be none of this terrorism and jihad shit going on right now.

[attofishpi]

Conclusion. Christian doctrine is essentially violent and imbecile.

AGAIN:
Provide any scripture of Christianity that supports your claim.

Christian doctrine is not scriptural. It is the product of inventions by its clergy. The result is not even closed under logical consequence. That is exactly what makes it imbecile.

Christian doctrine is formed via the life of Christ per Gospel scripture. Clergy (men making up shite to other men) have sweet FA to do with what is ACTUAL Christianity.

Provide Gospel scripture where Christ is insisting on people killing each other.

[godelian]

Christian doctrine is formed via the life of Christ per Gospel scripture. Clergy (men making up shite to other men) have sweet FA to do with what is ACTUAL Christianity.

Provide Gospel scripture where Christ is insisting on people killing each other.

As I have pointed out already, Christian doctrine has little to do with Christ or his ministry.

That is ACTUAL Christianity, as it ACTUALLY exists today, for the vast majority of Christians.

What you are advocating, i.e. a branch of Christianity solely based on the Gospels, does not even exist in mainstream Christianity:

ChatGPT: A branch of Christianity solely based on the Gospels

A branch of Christianity solely based on the Gospels would focus exclusively on the teachings and life of Jesus as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. While no major Christian denomination adheres strictly only to the Gospels, some movements emphasize them above all other scriptures. Here are a few examples:

1. Red Letter Christianity – This movement prioritizes the words of Jesus (often printed in red in some Bibles) over other biblical texts. It focuses on Jesus' teachings about love, justice, and social issues.

2. Gospel-Only Christians – Some independent believers or small groups reject the Old Testament and even parts of the New Testament outside the four Gospels, arguing that Jesus' direct teachings are sufficient for salvation and Christian living.

3. Some Sects of Christadelphians and Other Restorationists – Some restorationist groups emphasize Jesus' teachings and may downplay or reinterpret the Old Testament and Pauline letters.

4. Certain Liberal or Progressive Christian Movements – Some progressive Christian groups focus almost entirely on Jesus' ethical teachings while disregarding other biblical texts that they see as outdated or contradictory.

If you were to establish a formal branch of Christianity based solely on the Gospels, it might reject Pauline theology, Old Testament law, and later church doctrines, focusing entirely on Jesus’ words and actions. Would you be interested in exploring what such a faith would look like in practice?

The question is whether that would even be compatible with the ministry of Christ, who was first and foremost a Jew, and a staunch adherent of the original Jewish scriptures. What you are advocating, sounds pretty much like "abolishing the law", which is certainly not something that Christ was a supporter of.

If you intend to abolish the Jewish Torah, your views are very much divorced from what Christ himself advocated.

Concerning the use of force, you will find that the Jewish Torah is not pacifist at all:

ChatGPT: Violence in the Torah

The Torah contains numerous accounts of violence, both as historical narratives and as divine commandments. These passages have been interpreted in various ways, depending on religious, historical, and ethical perspectives. Below are some key aspects of violence in the Torah:

1. Divinely Commanded Violence

Conquest of Canaan: God commands the Israelites to wage war against the inhabitants of Canaan (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 6-12). These passages describe the destruction of cities and peoples.

The Amalekites: In Exodus 17:8-16 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19, God commands Israel to destroy Amalek for attacking them in the wilderness.

Punishments for Sin: The Torah prescribes capital punishment for certain offenses, including idolatry, blasphemy, and Sabbath-breaking (e.g., Leviticus 24:10-16, Numbers 15:32-36).

2. Violence as a Consequence of Sin

Flood Narrative: God floods the world due to human corruption and violence (Genesis 6-9).

Sodom and Gomorrah: These cities are destroyed due to their wickedness (Genesis 19).

Plagues of Egypt: God sends plagues upon Egypt, culminating in the death of the firstborn (Exodus 7-12).

3. Interpersonal Violence

Cain and Abel: The first recorded murder occurs when Cain kills his brother Abel (Genesis 4:1-16).

Levi and Simeon’s Revenge: They massacre the city of Shechem in retaliation for the assault on their sister, Dinah (Genesis 34).

Moses Killing an Egyptian: Moses kills an Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11-12).

4. Regulation of Violence

The Torah introduces legal and ethical guidelines to limit violence, such as “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23-25), which is interpreted in rabbinic tradition as monetary compensation rather than literal retaliation.

Cities of Refuge: These were established to protect those who committed manslaughter from revenge killings (Numbers 35).

Interpretation and Ethical Challenges

Many Jewish and non-Jewish scholars wrestle with the ethical implications of these violent passages.

Rabbinic tradition often reinterprets violent commands, emphasizing ethical monotheism, justice, and peace (e.g., Maimonides argues that many violent commandments applied only in specific historical contexts).

Would you like a deeper look into any particular aspect of this?

As a keeper of Jewish law, Christ was not a pacifist. On the contrary, he refused to change even one letter to Jewish law or to the Torah.

The use of force is not necessarily wrong in itself. Social order in human society actually depends on it. After all these centuries, we still have a police that will not hesitate to enforce societal rules. Violence is therefore a necessary ingredient of human reality. It needs to be regulated but that is exactly what the religious scriptures do. I do not believe in pacifism, if only because it is not compatible with human nature and the reality of human society.