The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present

[Veritas Aequitas]

All Christians had entered into a Contract with Jesus/God re John 3:16 and are bounded by the terms of the contract within the Gospels [ONLY] especially the morally related 'love all, even enemies'.

If Christians commit evil acts on their own outside the terms of the contract, such acts of evil has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Being human, some Christians will commit evil acts driven by their evil impulses or misinterpret certain texts to justify their killing of humans.

However ignorance of the contractual terms cannot be a defense on Judgment Day when facing God.

At most sinful Christians can hope is forgiveness which may be possible if their acts are acted on the basis of just_ness.

It is ignorance of the part of those who accuse Christianity the religion as evil; when Christians commit evil acts on their own outside the terms of the contract, such acts of evil has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I deny it.

Your arguments for your denial?

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=653810 time=1688542339 user_id=7896]
[b]Thesis:[/b] The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
Nb: Most Effective, not most realistic nor objective.

While I have argued,
[b]It is Impossible for God to be Real[/b] 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 [b]most effective[/b] in terms of meeting the intended utilities of morality per se since it first emerged and even at PRESENT [not necessary in the future].

[b]Morality-proper[/b] is essentially the managing [ideally to eliminate ALL] of evil acts to facilitate its corresponding goods.
What is [b]most evil[/b] is related to [b]the killing of human beings by human beings[/b].

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]?
[/quote]

Knowledge is justified belief. There is nothing in christanity qua christanity that counts as justified belief, therefore, christanity has no framework and system of knowledge. The most that can be said of it is that it is a framework and system of data about beliefs.

[Flannel Jesus]

I just didn't really like that you said I can't deny it. I can and I will. Just in protest.

[Iwannaplato]

All Christians had entered into a Contract with Jesus/God re John 3:16 and are bounded by the terms of the contract within the Gospels [ONLY] especially the morally related 'love all, even enemies'.

If Christians commit evil acts on their own outside the terms of the contract, such acts of evil has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

I already argued against this point.

Being human, some Christians will commit evil acts driven by their evil impulses or misinterpret certain texts to justify their killing of humans.

However ignorance of the contractual terms cannot be a defense on Judgment Day when facing God.

I addressed this point.

At most sinful Christians can hope is forgiveness which may be possible if their acts are acted on the basis of just_ness.

It is ignorance of the part of those who accuse Christianity the religion as evil; when Christians commit evil acts on their own outside the terms of the contract, such acts of evil has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

I didn't accuse Christianity as being evil.

[Iwannaplato]

Re Luke 19:27 I will address the other point later.

Luke 19:27 is part of a parable told by Jesus, commonly referred to as the Parable of the Ten Minas. In this parable, a nobleman goes away to receive a kingdom and entrusts his servants with money (minas) to invest while he is gone. When he returns, he rewards those who have multiplied their minas but punishes the servant who did nothing with his mina.

Luke 19:27, is the nobleman's response to the servant who did not invest the money: "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."

A parable must be taken in its full context and in this case do not constitute a command by Jesus /God to kill enemies.

On the other hand the words of Jesus to 'love all, even enemies' should be OVERRIDING over the nobleman's words in a parable.

INFO: I was never a Christian.

My apologies for thinking your were a Christian. Not that it's an insult, but it was incorrect.

This is your interpretation of that quote. And likely the interpretation of many Christians but not all. I have addressed the argument you make already in my first post in this thread.

[Iwannaplato]

This point is re CONTRACT" and "terms of the contract" critical to ensure the OT is not brought into the picture re Christianity's Moral FSK.

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, Christians will make it a point to comply with the terms of the contract.

When Christians entered into a contract with Jesus/God in a new covenant, the terms in the old contract [Jews] in the OT is abrogated [null & void].
The OT, Acts and Epistles are merely appendix to the new contract which has no contractual obligations for the Christians.

All the evil or other elements in the OT has no contractual obligations for Christians.

This is your interpretation, one amongst many. There are many Christian FSRs, not only at the broad scale - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox - but in the great diversity of this set of religions with one name. This was addressed in my first post in the thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Further clarifications:

I claim 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].

Most Effective, does not mean most realistic nor objective; I have also qualified it is effective and optimal in relation of the current psychological states of the majority.

Religions are generally associated with 'morality'.
However, I insisted religious morality is not morality-proper but rather pseudo-morality.

How is Christianity morality the most effective AT PRESENT [not the future].

Christianity vs Islam [~5 billions of followers];
Christians enter into a contractual bond with Jesus/God with an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all, even enemies' which align with the most critical element of morality.

Followers of Islam enter into a contractual bond with their God where the contractual terms condone the killing of non-believers; this is condoning immorality.

Here is the evidence;
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg
43,605 incidents [not victims] with fatalities of non-believers as commanded in the holy texts of the religion.

In contrast, there is ZERO killings of non-Christians that is directly from the commands of Jesus & God.

As such, it is undisputable Christianity morality is more effective than that of Islam with 5 billions people.

The other morality are those of Moral Relativism where to each their own.
In this case, if the "morality" of a certain moral theistic FSK condone the killing of the 'other' e.g. Nazism and other genocidal cults, this is acceptable by the Moral Relativists.

What other moral FSK can be more effective than the Christianity Moral FSK at PRESENT [not future] taking into account the PSYCHOLOGICAL states of the majority of humans?

Even if there is any, one or more, they are likely to be represented by very few followers. e.g. Jainism. However taking into account weightage by number of followers and its practicality, its utilities is not significantly effective.

Effectiveness in this case would be;
In THEORY, given the choice, AT PRESENT, morality is the most effective if ALL humans were to convert to Christianity.

[Iwannaplato]

What is critical is the existence of the Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
So everything that is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of humans] is assumed to be objective.
BUT I stated there are degrees of objective that is subjected to the credibility and reliability of the specific human-based FSK where the science FSK is the standard [100/100] and the theistic-FSK is at the extreme end [~1/100] of the standard.

Often the above definition of objectivity, while very true as qualified, is very uncomfortable to many.
This validity of defining objectivity is similar to the fact that it is valid in terms of black or white and greyness in degrees, for 99% white to be 1% black. You cannot deny this.

Is this version of objectivity that theism is objective, that astrology is objective (but with low credibility), that any belief system is objective
believed by more than you
or is it one person's beliefs?

Could you link us to a source that shows that your version of objectivity, not in the abstract only, but with examples showing that these other people agree that theism, and FSRs like astrology, are objective just not that credible.

Again, not just a like to some abstract description of objectivity, but demonstrate to us that some collective actually agrees with specific examples that are not credible but should be considered objective.

If you cannot do that, then we cannot consider your FSR hypothesis/suggestion to be objective on your own criteria for objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All Christians had entered into a Contract with Jesus/God re John 3:16 and are bounded by the terms of the contract within the Gospels [ONLY] especially the morally related 'love all, even enemies'.

If Christians commit evil acts on their own outside the terms of the contract, such acts of evil has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

I don't believe the above point can be countered, if so, how?

Regardless of which sub-Christian FSKs, they all must be contracted to the terms within the Gospels and nowhere else.
That is why they are called Christians as bonded to the terms in the Gospels of Christ.

[Flannel Jesus]

You can counter it by saying, Christians haven't entered into a contract with Jesus/god, because Jesus is dead and god doesn't exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can counter it by saying, Christians haven't entered into a contract with Jesus/god, because Jesus is dead and god doesn't exist.

Of course, non-Christians and non-theists can counter that.
For non-theists God, the Christian God is an illusion.

But it is different to a Christian who had entered into a Contract [divine covenant] with Jesus & God whom they believe are real and 'alive'.
Christians will act in compliance to the terms of the contract to ensure they are SAFE with a journey to heaven with eternal life.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Knowledge is justified belief. There is nothing in christanity qua christanity that counts as justified belief, therefore, christanity has no framework and system of knowledge. The most that can be said of it is that it is a framework and system of data about beliefs.

In this case, I am not taking 'knowledge' to be that pedantic.

Christianity is still based on belief, albeit the belief is not as credibly justified as science -the standard. As such, Christianity has a Framework and System of beliefs.

I am using 'knowledge' as a common denominator and continuum from 1 [unjustified beliefs] to 100 [justified true beliefs].

[Flannel Jesus]

I think for me, finding out that "objective" means this self-referential, tautological thing to VA, definitely results in me thinking his idea of "objective morality" is worth ignoring in bulk. If something is "objective" because it's conditioned upon itself, then everything is objective and objectivity loses meaning.

I don't really care about that kind of self referential objectivity. It doesn't mean anything to me. So I don't care about that conception of objective morality either.

[Iwannaplato]

I think for me, finding out that "objective" means this self-referential, tautological thing to VA, definitely results in me thinking his idea of "objective morality" is worth ignoring in bulk. If something is "objective" because it's conditioned upon itself, then everything is objective and objectivity loses meaning.

I don't really care about that kind of self referential objectivity. It doesn't mean anything to me. So I don't care about that conception of objective morality either.

Yes objective means some group of humans uses the FSK.
So, for him to demonstrate this framework for FSKs is valid, by his own criteria he needs to find someone who agrees that some mix of FSKs are all objective. And the mix must have those things large numbers of people consider objective, like science, and then things not generally thought of as objective. So the list would have to be something like...
astrology, science, psychology, nazism, satanism, parapsychology, medium readings, and perhaps a few religious cults thrown in.

Unless VA can link us to some group that also believes all FSKs on a similar list are objective, then his claim about what objective means fails by its own criteria.

And I'd like to add. Nowhere does he remotely address the issues I raised supporting Christianity being the most effective FSK for morality. Here we are questioning his use of 'objective' but effective is a very specific and quite empirical claim.