Christianity is a violent religion

[Veritas Aequitas]

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groups focus almost entirely on Jesus' ethical teachings while disregarding other biblical texts that they see as outdated or contradictory.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:
...
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.

You got it wrong.
You have committed a fallacy of conflation between the "essence of Christianity" and those who think they are practicing it accordingly.

The essence of Christianity is grounded on Christ and the Gospels only via John 3:16, where to be a Christian-proper a believer must enter into a covenant [NEW] with Christ/God; the covenantee therefrom must comply with all the terms of the covenant which is confined to the Gospels.
The point is Christianity is leveraged on the offer of Christ/God as in John 3:16 and elsewhere.
The overriding maxims of the covenant is pacifist.

As above, ChatGpt confirm there are Christians who focus solely on the Gospels.
That what is supposedly mainstream 'Christianity' does not focus SOLELY on the Gospels, does not absolve Christians [as covenanted] from the need to comply with the terms of the covenant with reference to John 3:16 in the Gospels.

While the majority of Christianity Institution do not focus solely on the Gospels, the majority [say 90%] of Christians are well aware of the need to comply with the pacifist maxim and they do comply with it implicitly or intuitively, i.e. they do not kill non-believers.
It is only the minority 10% [200 millions] who are ignorant that they are covenanted and thus likely to commit evil acts against the covenanted pacifist laws.

The point here is, ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day where God is omniscient, all knowing.
On Judgment Day, those who committed evil acts against the pacifist maxims as covenanted would have committed sins. It is then up to God to forgive them with grace if their 'evil' acts are justified, e.g. the Crusader did it for the greater good of the religion.

Jesus was a Jew, but he was sent by God to deliver and preach a NEW Covenant which is pacifistic thus abrogating the Old covenant in the Torah.

You have committed a fallacy of conflation between the "essence of Christianity" and those who think they are practicing it accordingly.

Therefore, Christianity proper as grounded on the Gospels only is not violent.

On the other hand, Islam is inherently evil and violent because the Quran has terms where Muslims are compelled [as covenanted] to commit evil acts upon non-believers as obligated in their covenant with Allah, where the terms of the covenant are confined to the Quran.
What is frightening is, if only 10% are evil prone, that is a whopping 150-200 millions of evil prone Muslims who will comply with the terms their covenant [mithaq] in the Quran as commanded to commit evil acts upon non-believers upon the slightest fasad [5:33] (corruption, mischiefs, threats). The consequences are so evident.

[godelian]

You got it wrong.
You have committed a fallacy of conflation between the "essence of Christianity" and those who think they are practicing it accordingly.

I just looked at what Christians actually do. I don't care particularly much about what they say.

Therefore, Christianity proper as grounded on the Gospels only is not violent.

The Christian clergy has subverted State law with a view on imposing Christian doctrine concerning marriage and divorce onto non-Christians. If the Christian clergy wants to impose its views onto others, then they must prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Therefore, it is in my opinion necessary to resurrect the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and to rigorously start solving the same old problem all over again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You got it wrong.
You have committed a fallacy of conflation between the "essence of Christianity" and those who think they are practicing it accordingly.

I just looked at what Christians actually do. I don't care particularly much about what they say.

When Muslims are presented with statistics that SOME Muslims had committed >47,600 incidents with fatalities since 911, they [& likely you] would counter, "you cannot simply rely on what Muslims do" you have to refer to the verses in the Quran which are supposedly peaceful. [truth is it is not]

So you are a hypocrite when you insist "I just looked at what Christians actually do."

It is not what they say, what is critical here is what does the constitution of the ideology which the believers are covenanted stipulated to be complied.

So the question is, do the covenanted terms within the Gospels compel Christians to commit evil acts upon any person[s]?
The answer is no because the overriding maxim of Christianity is pacifistic.

It is the same with SOME Muslims committing terrible evil acts [> 47,600 since 911]. We just cannot depend on the statistics, we need to trace the root cause to the constitution of the ideology.
So the question is, do the covenanted terms within the Quran compel Muslims to commit evil acts upon any person[s]?
The answer is YES! because the Quran verses [God's law] permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest fasad [corruption, mischiefs, threats against the religion].

Therefore, Christianity proper as grounded on the Gospels only is not violent.

The Christian clergy has subverted State law with a view on imposing Christian doctrine concerning marriage and divorce onto non-Christians. If the Christian clergy wants to impose its views onto others, then they must prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Therefore, it is in my opinion necessary to resurrect the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and to rigorously start solving the same old problem all over again.

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

Note re ChatGpt view on the Christianity-proper is not violent.

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].

Therefore, it is in my opinion necessary to resurrect the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and to rigorously start solving the same old problem all over again.

This reflect your inherent psychopathic and evil nature.
If you have an active empathic function, you would not propose the above.

[godelian]

So the question is, do the covenanted terms within the Quran compel Muslims to commit evil acts upon any person[s]?

As I have argued before, acts of enforcement are not necessarily wrong. They may actually be badly needed. In the end, all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. That is why these things can only be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some people deserve what is coming at them, simply because the chicken came home to roost.

The Christian clergy has subverted State law with a view on imposing Christian doctrine concerning marriage and divorce onto non-Christians. If the Christian clergy wants to impose its views onto others, then they must prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Therefore, it is in my opinion necessary to resurrect the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and to rigorously start solving the same old problem all over again.

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

The Christian clergy subverts State law and seeks to enforce it against non-Christians. That is exactly what the French and the Russian Revolutionaries put a stop to. It simply had to be done. That is also why I am a fan of the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU. They were doing the work of the Lord!

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].

No, I disagree. The resurrection of the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU is what is the most optimal for the majority of people at present. Most people are not Christian. Hence, they do not benefit from being force-fed the Christian doctrine concerning marriage and divorce through the State. That is why the French and Russian revolutions were necessary when they occurred and are now necessary again. Long live the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU!

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the question is, do the covenanted terms within the Quran compel Muslims to commit evil acts upon any person[s]?

As I have argued before, acts of enforcement are not necessarily wrong. They may actually be badly needed. In the end, all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. That is why these things can only be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some people deserve what is coming at them, simply because the chicken came home to roost.

You don't have an efficient moral compass and your sense of morality is very bad with a high sense of evil.

Say, you are a parent to a son.
The proper morality is to teach your son and establish the moral maxim as a default that at no time he should kill his parents, siblings, kin, friends and any human being. This is a regulative imperative, i.e. an ideal as the overriding maxim.
However, when your son [assuming normal average person] faced a live or death situation, he will naturally as human being had to flee or if cornered necessarily will have to fight & kill the source of the critical threat, even if it is his parents, siblings, kin, friends and any human being.
In this case, your son will have to face the current law enacted or God on Judgment Day.
But the key point here is there must be an overriding default moral maxim which all can fall back to ensure morality-proper is sustained and maintained.

This is where Christianity is most effective because it has a default overriding maxim of 'no 'killing of any human, even enemies'.
But that will not stop Christians as normal human beings killing humans if there is critical need of self-defense; they would have sinned against God command but there is room for forgiveness if the killing is justified for the greater good.

On the other hand, with Islam, there is no overriding maxim to stop Muslims to kill any human being; instead Muslims are compelled via their covenant [5:33 etc.] to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat [fasad]. The problem is there is no final interpretation of the meaning of fasad, so anything goes and SOME Muslims will kill upon their own interpretations of what is fasad. This is so evident where non-Muslims are killed for drawing cartoons or that they are merely disbelievers.

The Christian clergy has subverted State law with a view on imposing Christian doctrine concerning marriage and divorce onto non-Christians. If the Christian clergy wants to impose its views onto others, then they must prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Therefore, it is in my opinion necessary to resurrect the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU and to rigorously start solving the same old problem all over again.

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

The Christian clergy subverts State law and seeks to enforce it against non-Christians. That is exactly what the French and the Russian Revolutionaries put a stop to. It simply had to be done. That is also why I am a fan of the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU. They were doing the work of the Lord!

I have told you what the Christian clergy did has nothing to do with Christianity-proper.
They did it on their own volition as human beings with evil impulses.
Christianity-proper is not be blamed but is the humans who are guilty.
If the OGPU did it, they cannot blame Christianity-proper but the abuse of Christianity by the members of the clergy.

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].

No, I disagree. The resurrection of the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU is what is the most optimal for the majority of people at present. Most people are not Christian. Hence, they do not benefit from being force-fed the Christian doctrine concerning marriage and divorce through the State. That is why the French and Russian revolutions were necessary when they occurred and are now necessary again. Long live the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU!

The point is at present the psychological state of the majority, i.e. being infected with an inherent existential crisis, they need theistic religions as a balm to soothe the existential pain because there are no easier solutions.
The previous Soviet OGPU and French Revolutionaries were ignorant and has no human empathic sense then, thus their impulse to get rid of the evil clergy and by hasty generalization took steps to ban Christianity proper.

But at present the Soviets and French has fortunately increased the Empathy Quotient [EQ] and has since accepted Christianity [& other religions] in their country. There is no reason for them as humans who are more evolved to fall back on evil primordial impulses. Unfortunately, they are ignorant of the inherent evil within TROP.

Here is where Islam is problematic. Islam emerged from primal, primordial primitive religions >1400 years ago and its ideology is commanded by Allah to be immutable, as such it will last as it was eternally.
This is why by the immutable Quran, Muslims are compelled to get rid of Judaism, Christianity, the secular so that Islam alone remain as the religion for all mankind.
SOME Muslims from a pool of 10% critical minority [150-200 million] would feast on such commands and the real consequences is there are >47,600 incidents with fatalities committed by Islamists in the name of the religion since 911.

You want the OGPU to do the dirty work for you, but it is not likely anyone from the Soviet will do it.
Rather the one who will do it [your dreams and wishes] will be psychotic believers like you will do it given the chance; those had the chance has already done it re >47,600 incidents with fatalities.
When are you going to do it to secure your passage to paradise with 72 virgins?

[godelian]

You don't have an efficient moral compass and your sense of morality is very bad with a high sense of evil.

I am not a Christian. I spit, pee, and shit on what Christians say about morality.

You want the OGPU to do the dirty work for you

Yes. I like how the Soviet OGPU solved the problem. It was very "efficient".
The problem needs to be solved and somebody has to do the dirty work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't have an efficient moral compass and your sense of morality is very bad with a high sense of evil.

I am not a Christian. I spit, pee, and shit on what Christians say about morality.

Strawman as usual.
You are committing fallacy here in persistently conflating Christians with Christianity.
What Christians said about their morality as you perceived it may not be the morality of Christianity-proper as I had highlighted above.

You want the OGPU to do the dirty work for you

Yes. I like how the Soviet OGPU solved the problem. It was very "efficient".
The problem needs to be solved and somebody has to do the dirty work.
[/quote]
That is wishful thinking but your wish does reflect your lack of morality, no moral compass and your evil tendencies and inclinations.

[godelian]

That is wishful thinking but your wish does reflect your lack of morality, no moral compass and your evil tendencies and inclinations.

The French and Russian revolutionaries were people of undeniably high moral standing. They risked their lives and died to liberate us from the Christian imbeciles.

[Fairy]

Non-violence ( God ) is violence ( Human )

[promethean75]

Clearly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is wishful thinking but your wish does reflect your lack of morality, no moral compass and your evil tendencies and inclinations.

The French and Russian revolutionaries were people of undeniably high moral standing. They risked their lives and died to liberate us from the Christian imbeciles.

Were you one of those rape victims by the priesthoold pedo that is driving you to hate whatever is 'Christians' so much?
If so, I don't blame you for leaving Christianity, but to jump into the fire [Islam] is a terrible mistake.
If you still need a religion to soothe the existential pains, give Buddhism-proper [non-institutional] a try, i.e. that which focus on 'mindfulness'.

[godelian]

Were you one of those rape victims by the priesthoold pedo that is driving you to hate whatever is 'Christians' so much?

Ha ha ha! I can certainly imagine that their victims don't like them!

[popeye1945]

All the desert religions are violent. With time Judaism and Christianity have mellowed, Islam is stuck in the seventh century, and at least China has categorized Islam as a mental illness, which I find no basis to deny. Christianity and Islam are derivates of Judaism and all their Gods or their common God was a God of War. These religions/mythologies are perhaps the prime examples of why our species will not survive, these belong to a primal brain function which is the reptilian complex, with unfettered emotions, the definition of violent chemistry.

[carlafeit]

All the desert religions are violent. With time Judaism and Christianity have mellowed, Islam is stuck in the seventh century, and at least China has categorized Islam as a mental illness, which I find no basis to deny. Christianity and Islam are derivates of Judaism and all their Gods or their common God was a God of War. These religions/mythologies are perhaps the prime examples of why our species will not survive, these belong to a primal brain function which is the reptilian complex, with unfettered emotions, the definition of violent chemistry.

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Christian environment - one might say "a cult".

I ran away from that environment - and my lack of knowledge of the outside world was, for a time, something of a challenge. (It continues to be, although I am beginning to get the hang of things.)

From what I experienced, Muslims are kind people who are quite willing to help complete strangers - the ones that helped me showed me nothing but kindness, they did not preach at me, they did not try to recruit me as a suicide bomber or anything of this sort. They took me home, they fed me, they gave me a place to sleep. I did get a lot of unasked-for advice from the Muslim grandmothers - but it came from a good place.

So I am not sure why all the hatred for Muslims. As far as I can tell, the Southern Baptists are much worse.

[popeye1945]

All the desert religions are violent. With time Judaism and Christianity have mellowed, Islam is stuck in the seventh century, and at least China has categorized Islam as a mental illness, which I find no basis to deny. Christianity and Islam are derivates of Judaism and all their Gods or their common God was a God of War. These religions/mythologies are perhaps the prime examples of why our species will not survive, these belong to a primal brain function which is the reptilian complex, with unfettered emotions, the definition of violent chemistry.

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Christian environment - one might say "a cult".

I ran away from that environment - and my lack of knowledge of the outside world was, for a time, something of a challenge. (It continues to be, although I am beginning to get the hang of things.)

From what I experienced, Muslims are kind people who are quite willing to help complete strangers - the ones that helped me showed me nothing but kindness, they did not preach at me, they did not try to recruit me as a suicide bomber or anything of this sort. They took me home, they fed me, they gave me a place to sleep. I did get a lot of unasked-for advice from the Muslim grandmothers - but it came from a good place.

So I am not sure why all the hatred for Muslims. As far as I can tell, the Southern Baptists are much worse.

https://www.skeptical-science.com/relig ... ses-quran/

The Quran is the only scripture that says apostasy is punishable by death. In other words, if you change your mind and wish to leave the faith, it is a death sentence.