NationStates Jolt Archive

This is really just kind of a poll thing. I'm sorry if those are illegal. Let me know and I'll stop.

I don't really want to debate about this, but you are all welcome to do so.

It seems to me that when the majority of people hear the word "Calvinism" they have a heart attack. But it also seems that very few of those people have any idea what Calvinism really is.

So, I would like to see of those of you who have truly investigated this theology whether you support it or not. Please use the following to make your vote:

Researched and like: you've debated about it with others who disagree (debated, not argued), you've read several books, pamphlets, etc. in support of it, and you've come to the conclusion that is correct.

Researched and dislike:you've debated about it with others who disagree (debated, not argued), you've read several books, pamphlets, etc. in support of it, and you've come to the conclusion that is incorrect.

Have not researched and like: you haven't really discussed it or read about it, but it seems good to you

Have not researched and dislike: you haven't really discussed it or read about it, but it seems pretty horrible to you

I had the research as those who support it, because in my own personal experience, the vast majority of those who write against it, don't understand it. It's hard to swallow when portrayed by good propoganda, so...

All religions are more trouble then they are worth.

Considered, and rejected. I am not a predeterministic, robotic actor playing out God's great screenplay, thank you very much.

Can't really make a choice beyond "What is Clavinism?" :D

I really wouldn't mind understanding Calvinism either.
Being Presbyterian, I suppose I should have a better clue.
But it has yet to impact my faith.
I was Missouri Synod Lutheran which caused me to abandon my faith (I would even go so far as to say I had NO faith until I visited the Presbyterian church I go to now.)

Considered, and rejected. I am not a predeterministic, robotic actor playing out God's great screenplay, thank you very much.

You are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for expressing it. (No sarcasm intended)

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601276']Can't really make a choice beyond "What is Clavinism?" :D

I really wouldn't mind understanding Calvinism either.
Being Presbyterian, I suppose I should have a better clue.
But it has yet to impact my faith.
I was Missouri Synod Lutheran which caused me to abandon my faith (I would even go so far as to say I had NO faith until I visited the Presbyterian church I go to now.)

Find Ligonier Ministries on the internat and find some more basic stuff ... Names escape me right now, but read that material first and then move on to stuff about predestination and God's calling. After you have difested that move onto the Westminster Standards (I'm sure your church would be happy to give you a copy of the Book of Confessions) and Institutes of the Christian Religion.

If you would like to talk to me about it feel free to TG me, but I would prefer not to debate it. It's best to have a quiet conversation not an argument with a whole group of people.

I have not researched it seriously. From what I have read, however, I reject it.

Firstly, I hold that I do indeed have free will.

Secondly, I don't believe in any god, and certainly not in one that controls everything.

Thirdly, I don't accept the legitimacy of a system that arbitrarily selects people to be granted salvation.

(No sarcasm intended)

None taken - :confused: - ?

I researched it, but from an apologetics standpoint, so I am probably already biased. Maybe you could give us a quick rundown?

None taken - :confused: - ?

I was afraid I sounded too oily, but that wasn't my intent at all.

I researched it, but from an apologetics standpoint, so I am probably already biased. Maybe you could give us a quick rundown?

Rundown?

I have not researched it seriously. From what I have read, however, I reject it.

Firstly, I hold that I do indeed have free will.

Secondly, I don't believe in any god, and certainly not in one that controls everything.

Thirdly, I don't accept the legitimacy of a system that arbitrarily selects people to be granted salvation.

Agreed. This sums up very well the little I know of Calvinism & my lack of belief in any gods.

Secondly, I don't believe in any god, and certainly not in one that controls everything.

You'd like my God, I think. My God is frankly hopping up and down and waving his arms about, trying to enthuse people with all the incredibly cool stuff happening in this continuum - but no-one pays any attention.

Rundown?

I didn't get past the "predestination" in my studies, are there other doctrinally unique things about Calvinism that I should know?

I have to admit that "Free Will" is a strong part of my beliefs.
And so far nobody has mentioned any sort of arbitrary selection for Salvation...
It seemed to be UNIVERSAL SALVATION with only acceptance required.

Is it possible that there might be a NON-Calvinist version of Presbyterian?

I didn't get past the "predestination" in my studies, are there other doctrinally unique things about Calvinism that I should know?

Not really. There are some small differences, but the big things are that it's evangelical (traditional definition) and predestinarian (as defined by Augustine). Most Calvinists are presbyterian (republican church government) but not necessarily.

excepting the part where im an atheist and a roman catholic, HELL NO.

i dont like the underlying theology (as it differs from other christian denominations) and it entirely too plain in terms of worship.

Agreed. This sums up very well the little I know of Calvinism & my lack of belief in any gods.

I should add that I also reject their view of human nature.

You'd like my God, I think. My God is frankly hopping up and down and waving his arms about, trying to enthuse people with all the incredibly cool stuff happening in this continuum - but no-one pays any attention.

Does he have a sense of humor? What does he think of human freedom?

This is really just kind of a poll thing. I'm sorry if those are illegal. Let me know and I'll stop.

I don't really want to debate about this, but you are all welcome to do so.

It seems to me that when the majority of people hear the word "Calvinism" they have a heart attack. But it also seems that very few of those people have any idea what Calvinism really is.

So, I would like to see of those of you who have truly investigated this theology whether you support it or not. Please use the following to make your vote:

Researched and like: you've debated about it with others who disagree (debated, not argued), you've read several books, pamphlets, etc. in support of it, and you've come to the conclusion that is correct.

Researched and dislike:you've debated about it with others who disagree (debated, not argued), you've read several books, pamphlets, etc. in support of it, and you've come to the conclusion that is incorrect.

Have not researched and like: you haven't really discussed it or read about it, but it seems good to you

Have not researched and dislike: you haven't really discussed it or read about it, but it seems pretty horrible to you

I had the research as those who support it, because in my own personal experience, the vast majority of those who write against it, don't understand it. It's hard to swallow when portrayed by good propoganda, so...

Yes, I've truly researched it.

If you like the idea of burning people to death for sport, it's the religion for you.

As for me, I'm not on brain detail anymore.

I find it fundamentally illogical. It reduces human beings from the image of God to little more than playthings whose eternal fate is determined on a whim. The concept of total depravity is totally unsupported and unmentioned in the Torah and is not mentioned in any of the Gospels; it's an interpretation of one line in the book of Romans by the apostle Paul, a man who never met or knew Jesus in his lifetime and whose teachings do not harmonize with the ones in the Gospels or even the writings of James.

Other than the logical flaws, it's also theologically dubious. But if it helps someone live a good life I don't really have a problem with it. I don't care what people believe as long as it leads them to do good in this life, because in reality none of us know for certain what lies in the afterlife.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Calvin_%26_Hobbes_-_Calvin.png

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601324']I have to admit that "Free Will" is a strong part of my beliefs.
And so far nobody has mentioned any sort of arbitrary selection...

Is it possible that there might be a NON-Calvinist version of Presbyterian?

Can you be a member of a Presbyterian Church and not be a Calvinist? Sure.
But that's like living in the US and not being a citizen.

I don't mean to sound like I'm driving you out. I would love for you to really sit down and consider it before you judge one way or another. But there are strong churches that are Arminian (anti-Calvinist evangelical [traditional definition] Protestants). Methodists are the closest thing to Presbyterians. There are some Arminian churches that have a presbyterian government but I can't think of the name.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Calvin_%26_Hobbes_-_Calvin.png

Some people think that Bill Watterson named Calvin because of the similarities in personality. I really don't know if that is true or if it's fair to John Calvin.

The concept of total depravity is totally unsupported and unmentioned in the Torah and is not mentioned in any of the Gospels; it's an interpretation of one line in the book of Romans by the apostle Paul, a man who never met or knew Jesus in his lifetime and whose teachings do not harmonize with the ones in the Gospels or even the writings of James.

Sometimes I really do find it astonishing just how much some people read in to the Garden of Eden story.

I have to agree with those who said that they dislike it because of its predeterminism and its arbitrariness; I haven't researched it myself, though.

what tenets of calvinism do you think would be most persuasive to a christian open to changing denominations?

Actually, it sounds a lot more hopeful to be a non-Calvinist.

I prefer the idea that EVERYONE can be saved IF they choose it rather than God deciding before their birth whether they will fail to be saved despite all their efforts.

I'm failing to see after all my reading where the benefit is of such Elitism.
Jesus didn't choose the Pious and "Holy", he chose the downtrodden and marginalized.
Predestination seems to much like "Pharisee Thinking" to me...
Must ask my Minister about this...

what tenets of calvinism do you think would be most persuasive to a christian open to changing denominations?

If this is to me, I would have to say that the thing which persuaded me is that my salvation does not depend on my strength. I became convinced of total depravity (that every aspect of Man is affected by sin and as such he is totally averse(sp?) to God) and Calvinism is (to me) comforting because it means that I cannot fall. NOT because of my deeds, but because the all powerful God will keep me. But that doesn't mean anything to you unless you believe in total depravity.

The worship of Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes? I'm all over that.

Does he have a sense of humor? What does he think of human freedom?

The greatest sense of humour in all of, and exterior to, SpaceTime.

As far as freedom goes, that's really an internal matter. 'Tis a busy God, my God - and there's just not nearly enough time for God to personally and individually wipe our noses for each and every one of us.

But hey humanity, check out that nebula and lookit those stars and wait'll you see these far-out ameobae... and... and... everything! Isn't it great? Now, excuse me while I let out the legs on these ant-people I'm tinkering with over by Tau Ceti...

If this is to me, I would have to say that the thing which persuaded me is that my salvation does not depend on my strength. I became convinced of total depravity (that every aspect of Man is affected by sin and as such he is totally averse(sp?) to God) and Calvinism is (to me) comforting because it means that I cannot fall. NOT because of my deeds, but because the all powerful God will keep me. But that doesn't mean anything to you unless you believe in total depravity.

seems similar to teaching an indian to believe in original sin. do you know people who were not raised with this idea of total depravity who have been convinced by it and are now calvinists?

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601382']Actually, it sounds a lot more hopeful to be a non-Calvinist.

I prefer the idea that EVERYONE can be saved IF they choose it rather than God deciding before their birth whether they will fail to be saved despite all their efforts.

I'm failing to see after all my reading where the benefit is of such Elitism.
Jesus didn't choose the Pious and "Holy", he chose the downtrodden and marginalized.
Predestination seems to much like "Pharisee Thinking" to me...
Must ask my Minister about this...

The central point is that Man WILL NOT and CANNOT choose God. So no one is being drug to heaven screaming "I don't wanna go to heaven!" and everyone going to hell may not want hell, but they prefer it to heaven.

So says the teaching, and I am repeating it, not trying to get into a debate/

The greatest sense of humour in all of, and exterior to, SpaceTime.

He gets points for that. Gods with no sense of humor are so boring.

As far as freedom goes, that's really an internal matter. 'Tis a busy God, my God - and there's just not nearly enough time for God to personally and individually wipe our noses for each and every one of us.

As long as he doesn't try to make me (or others) obey him, I'm okay with that.

If this is to me, I would have to say that the thing which persuaded me is that my salvation does not depend on my strength. I became convinced of total depravity (that every aspect of Man is affected by sin and as such he is totally averse(sp?) to God) and Calvinism is (to me) comforting because it means that I cannot fall. NOT because of my deeds, but because the all powerful God will keep me. But that doesn't mean anything to you unless you believe in total depravity.
But what if God didn't CHOOSE you during the Predestination?
What if you are one of those that will fall NO MATTER WHAT?

I don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, I don't believe in his ressurrection, I don't believe many of the Old Testament stories. Therefore I don't believe in Calvinism or any other form of Christianity.

Sometimes I really do find it astonishing just how much some people read in to the Garden of Eden story.

It's an extremely symbolic story; anyone who tries to interpret it is going to run in to problems unless they're very well versed in Jewish theology and cultural traditions. It's mankind's first sin, but the punishment and taint was borne by Adam and Eve alone and ended with them.

The children are not to be punished for the sins of the fathers...that's clearly stated by the Mosaic law, which was according to Jewish theology written by Moses, a man who "walked with God" and who spoke to him directly. Moses' teachings seem to have stronger basis than the writings of Paul, a man who never met Jesus in person and whose theology comes entirely from "personal revelation".

As long as he doesn't try to make me (or others) obey him, I'm okay with that.

Oh, where would be the fun in that? Naw, obeisance doesn't enter into it. Like I said, there's too much to do to get wrapped up in anything as mundane as policing humanity. It's a banner day that God's even aware we occupy a portion of SpaceTime.

seems similar to teaching an indian to believe in original sin. do you know people who were not raised with this idea of total depravity who have been convinced by it and are now calvinists?

Myself (to be honest, both parents are Calvinist, but I honestly cannot remember a time when anything about predestination ever came up until I asked about it after I had begun to support total depravity)
R. C. Sproul
Martin Luther
John Calvin (the last two kinda don't count in your reckoning, probably)

And those are all the people I know of: I'm still working on everyone else. Or rather God is working on them through me.

Oh, where would be the fun in that? Naw, obeisance doesn't enter into it. Like I said, there's too much to do to get wrapped up in anything as mundane as policing humanity. It's a banner day that God's even aware we occupy a portion of SpaceTime.

Well you'd never know. If God is actually omnipotent and omniscient it would be a piece of cake for him to micromanage every atom and electron floating around in the universe.

Considered, and rejected. I am not a predeterministic, robotic actor playing out God's great screenplay, thank you very much.
But from the standpoint of the xer god being the creator of everything and omniscience, the calvinists are at least honest in the respect of predestination/the elect & reprobate.

Well you'd never know. If God is actually omnipotent and omniscient it would be a piece of cake for him to micromanage every atom and electron floating around in the universe.

But think about it - do you really wanna hafta decide quantum-level crapola for everybody and his monkey 24-7? Like The Sims on Dexedrine.

But think about it - do you really wanna hafta decide quantum-level crapola for everybody and his monkey 24-7? Like The Sims on Dexedrine.

God might like to do that though. I don't like to judge anyone's hobbies, God included.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601406']But what if God didn't CHOOSE you during the Predestination?
What if you are one of those that will fall NO MATTER WHAT?

This is what I mean by ignorance about the doctrine. No offence meant to you.

If you are a Christian, truly a Christian, not fooling yourself, or living a lie or whatever, then you have been chosen. I would not believe this if I were not chosen. And I want to stress that it is in no way by my doing that I was chosen. I don't know why. I certainly didn't deserve it! I deserved, deserve, and will deserve damnation! But for a reason unknown to me God chose me. And He has chosen many. I don't know who else He has chosen and it is a great sin for me to even think of guessing.

I don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, I don't believe in his ressurrection, I don't believe many of the Old Testament stories. Therefore I don't believe in Calvinism or any other form of Christianity.

I'll pray for you.

I'll pray for you.

Well thank you! That's nice of you.

Well thank you! That's nice of you.

That's one of my goals. Though sadly and regretfully, I fall short quite often.

I'll pray for you.

Seriously though, a 'virgin' birth? Puh-lease.

Can't believe Joe bought that story.... probably left out the flying unicorns bit as she thought that was a little too much.

It's an extremely symbolic story; anyone who tries to interpret it is going to run in to problems unless they're very well versed in Jewish theology and cultural traditions. It's mankind's first sin, but the punishment and taint was borne by Adam and Eve alone and ended with them.

"Jewish theology and cultural traditions" do it too. Judaism, while it is far from as consumed as Christianity over the concept, does have a concept of Original Sin. Humanity fell by rejecting God in the Garden; it will be reunited with God when the Messiah comes.

This, however, is mostly Rabbinic. To my knowledge, the Bible indicates no such thing (keeping to the Old Testament.)

I, personally, regard the whole thing as nonsense, and did so even in my religious times. Human beings are what we make of ourselves.

The children are not to be punished for the sins of the fathers...that's clearly stated by the Mosaic law,

thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;

which was according to Jewish theology written by Moses, a man who "walked with God" and who spoke to him directly.

According to the Bible itself, not merely Jewish theology.

And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face

This is one of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith, though I'm not exactly sure why it is supposed to be so significant.

Moses' teachings seem to have stronger basis than the writings of Paul, a man who never met Jesus in person and whose theology comes entirely from "personal revelation".

Yes, but Moses never wrote any of them. They were composed by later authors, several according to the modern analyses, and compiled together from different texts and teachings by editors.

So in the end, who knows?

God might like to do that though. I don't like to judge anyone's hobbies, God included.

Well, I'm talking about my God, here - or at least, the God who I caught a glimpse of once or twice. No guarantees he's anybody elses' God. Honestly, he didn't have time for debating his existence. Or more likely, I didn't have the time, but there you are. He seemed really preoccupied with bigger stuff like deploying galaxies.

So in the end, who knows?

I believe we'll all know.

Well, I'm talking about my God, here - or at least, the God who I caught a glimpse of once or twice. No guarantees he's anybody elses' God. Honestly, he didn't have time for debating his existence. Or more likely, I didn't have the time, but there you are. He seemed really preoccupied with bigger stuff like deploying galaxies.

Well I hope I can catch a glimpse of God sooner or later. Right now I don't know if he exists or not, and I don't know what he's thinking about.

And aren't there like 100 billion galaxies or something? If God amuses himself by deploying 100 billion galaxies, it's not too far a stretch to imagine him being interested in deploying a bajillion atoms! Galaxies, atoms... it's all space dust to him.

Haven't got a use for a God, let alone a high-ranking facist like the Calvinist vision of God.

Dunno if it exists, don't care either. I think that if it does exist it needs to cut the moralizing crap and let things be, and that if it doesn't, it doesn't matter anyway.

Either way, Calvinism is about as far from any religious philosophy I'd follow as is possible.

Christian Anarchism? Buddhism? Wicca? Yeah... I can jive with those, but not any of this totalitarian nonsense (whether or not it's actually true).

im not sure how long you have been in NSG. but judging from your posts im assuming you are fairly new.

NSG appears to have a majority (or atleast much louder group) of people that will vote for against on anything that has to do with religion. some can make an arguement but others tend to either have no idea or no idea that they have actually come to themself.

basicly comes down to this: if you create a thread that has something to do with religion you will get a post about how religion is evil pretty damn quick

I'll pray for you.
Nothing fails quite like prayer.

Then there's also that "I'll pray for you" is code for "Fuck you".

Nothing fails quite like prayer.

Then there's also that "I'll pray for you" is code for "Fuck you".

Mainly, that's from Fundies...
"Pharisee" rather sums them up.

The Christians I prefer to associate with actually mean something pleasant by the statement.

You'd like my God, I think. My God is frankly hopping up and down and waving his arms about, trying to enthuse people with all the incredibly cool stuff happening in this continuum - but no-one pays any attention.
Sounds very much like Him who I have grown to appreciate and worship over the last two decades, even if I have only caught the slightest glimpse of what He has established and to offer to us!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Calvin_%26_Hobbes_-_Calvin.png
Phew! Glad you didn't use this one I first thought of when reading "Calvin". (No offense intended to anyone, a'ight? I just love this little mischievous fellow!)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/calvin.jpg

The worship of Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes? I'm all over that.

http://www.webskinz.com/photoshop_intro/projects/comic/calvin_hobbes1.jpg

im not sure how long you have been in NSG. but judging from your posts im assuming you are fairly new.

NSG appears to have a majority (or atleast much louder group) of people that will vote for against on anything that has to do with religion. some can make an arguement but others tend to either have no idea or no idea that they have actually come to themself.

basicly comes down to this: if you create a thread that has something to do with religion you will get a post about how religion is evil pretty damn quick

That's okay. They are entitled to their opinion and the expression of that opinion, though I would prefer it to be a peaceful expression.

Nothing fails quite like prayer.

Then there's also that "I'll pray for you" is code for "F*** you".

No, it means "I'm genuinely concerned for your salvation. Please consider what I've said and keep your mind open to it."

That's okay. They are entitled to their opinion and the expression of that opinion, though I would prefer it to be a peaceful expression.

Fortunately, it's difficult to get violent with text. ;)

No, it means "I'm genuinely concerned for your salvation. Please consider what I've said and keep your mind open to it."

Can't it be both?

Can't it be both?

Both "F you" and "I'm generally ...?"

I suppose so, though I've never used it in the first sense and I'm kind of offended that s/he would say that I would.

Calvinism is too zealous for me

Learned about it historically didn't like that. My opinion of the current incarnation depends on how similar it is to what it was than. From the sounds of it I don't think I would like it.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and opinions, but it is now 2:02 am and I need to go to church in the morning. Good night!

No, it means "I'm genuinely concerned for your salvation. Please consider what I've said and keep your mind open to it."
No, it means "Fuck you". It's always said at the point where the believer has utterly failed to convince the non-believer and wants something that sounds polite to exit with.

The worship of Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes? I'm all over that.
Heh (http://www.shovelbeating.org/~ryan/calvin-and-hobbes/ch860302.gif), beat me to it.

Of all the Christian sects/cults, Calvinism is the one I can suffer the least. Ugh.

No, it means "Fuck you". It's always said at the point where the believer has utterly failed to convince the non-believer and wants something that sounds polite to exit with.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way and I would like to apologize to you if you have experienced that on behalf of the Chrsitians who are appalled that anyone would say "I'll pray for you" with the intent you suggest.

The whole idea of not only being one of the "elect", but *knowing* you are one of the "elect", is 100% distasteful to me.

Both "F you" and "I'm generally ...?"

I suppose so, though I've never used it in the first sense and I'm kind of offended that s/he would say that I would.

"I hope someday you open your heart to Jesus. Until then, go fuck yourself."

I like it. ;)

"I hope someday you open your heart to Jesus. Until then, go fuck yourself."

I think I saw that on a bumper sticker the other day.

The whole idea of not only being one of the "elect", but *knowing* you are one of the "elect", is 100% distasteful to me.

Why? How is that different from knowing that you are more intelligent than most people or that you got the highest grade on that test or whatever?

Everyone can know if they are elect. You cannot know that you have been elected unless you believe in election (it would be most illogical otherwise) and it's pretty hard to believe in election and not know that you are of the elect. Possible, but pretty hard.

And as with all religious things, it comes down to faith.

The difference from my other examples is that I have not achieved election: that's an oxymoron. I deserve no praise or glory for it. It was because God chose me. Why? I have no idea. Everything I have done, He could have used someone else to do. I in no way deserve to be chosen. In fact, I deserve not to be chosen. And I don't know who hasn't been chosen.

I think I saw that on a bumper sticker the other day.

There is "Jesus loves you, everyone else things you're an asshole." Which is pretty good. But I want to find, "Even Jesus hates your guts." But so far, no luck. :(

don't really want to debate about this, but you are all welcome to do so
:fluffle:
was fun.
roger!!!!!!!!!

Nothing fails quite like prayer.

Then there's also that "I'll pray for you" is code for "Fuck you".

Did anybody see that study about the effects of prayer on healing?


If I remember right.

People who were correctly told they would not be prayed for - No Effect.
People who were prayed for, but told otherwise - Slight Negative Effect.
People who were correctly told that they would be prayed for - Biggest negative effect.

Did anybody see that study about the effects of prayer on healing?


If I remember right.

People who were correctly told they would not be prayed for - No Effect.
People who were prayed for, but told otherwise - Slight Negative Effect.
People who were correctly told that they would be prayed for - Biggest negative effect.

Funny, Newsweek and ABC said the exact opposite. Those who prayed and who were prayed for were healthier, healed more quickly, and live longer. Of course, those are poor reasons to pray (in my opinion).

So if I'm sick, would it be an act of self-defense to kill people who offer to pray for me?

Seriously though, a 'virgin' birth? Puh-lease.

Can't believe Joe bought that story.... probably left out the flying unicorns bit as she thought that was a little too much.


The whole "Virgin Birth" thing was a mistake. It was based on a mistranslation. The guy who wrote that she was a virgin based it on the idea that Jesus' virgin birth was not the first in the Bible. But the OT story he cited told of a "young woman," not a virgin. It was the same with Mary. It meant "young woman" until someone came along and mixed it all up.

Sort of like how Moses got horns because "ray of light" and "horns" are similar looking words in Hebrew.

Read up on it and debated it several times formally (meaning in front of an audience with ruls and a moderator) consider it completely insane and wrong.

BTW I was judged winner in each debate.

Funny, Newsweek and ABC said the exact opposite. Those who prayed and who were prayed for were healthier, healed more quickly, and live longer. Of course, those are poor reasons to pray (in my opinion).

Well, I first saw the story on The Daily Show, which tends to be much more accurate than Network News.

That's not a joke. Studies were done on that too.

Daily Show Viewers - most informed, and most accuratly informed.

Network News Viewers - less informed, but only suffer a few misconceptions (70% believe Iraq behind 9/11. 50% believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction even though Bush has admited that he did not.)

Non-News Viewers - Largely uninformed, but suffer fewer misconceptions.

FOX News Viewers - As informed as Network News Viewers, but suffer (or enjoy depending on how you look at it) many more misconceptions. (90% believe Saddam behind 9/11. Almost all believe Saddam had WMD's and that we found them. Many believe that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster and was a cocaine smuggler.).

Why?

For the simple notion from Jesus' own perspective that in the eyes of the Almighty, we are all 100% equal. Jesus dined with thieves and prostitutes.

The idea that someone could take the teachings of equality, brotherhood, acceptance, and tolerance and turn it into something of a badge that allows certain factions of a group to lord it over other people like they're somehow better because "they've been elected" is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Fortunately, a lot of people saw that as well and broke away from Calvinism to form Methodism.

How is that different from knowing that you are more intelligent than most people or that you got the highest grade on that test or whatever?

First: If you *know* you're more intelligent than most people, then you really aren't.

Second: God isn't a test.

Read up on it and debated it several times formally (meaning in front of an audience with ruls and a moderator) consider it completely insane and wrong.

BTW I was judged winner in each debate.

Of coure, because you were debating against it...:rolleyes: :p

Of coure, because you were debating against it...:rolleyes: :p

So do you think debating AGAINST is easer than FOR in general or are you convinced that the judges were biased againsts Calvinism?

First: If you *know* you're more intelligent than most people, then you really aren't.

Second: God isn't a test.

Great! Now what am I supposed to do with all this #2 holy water?

For the simple notion from Jesus' own perspective that in the eyes of the Almighty, we are all 100% equal. Jesus dined with thieves and prostitutes.

The idea that someone could take the teachings of equality, brotherhood, acceptance, and tolerance and turn it into something of a badge that allows certain factions of a group to lord it over other people like they're somehow better because "they've been elected" is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Fortunately, a lot of people saw that as well and broke away from Calvinism to form Methodism.

First: If you *know* you're more intelligent than most people, then you really aren't.

Second: God isn't a test.

I never said God was a test. And can you say that you are more intelligent than a severely autistic person? Of course, because intelligence is the ability to think and learn, which is (in varying degrees) retarded in autistic persons. Therefore, by definition, you must be more intelligent than an autistic person and you should know that so that you can better work with and adapt to help those with less intelligence. This is of course assuming that you are not autistic.

Finally, if anyone discriminates or hates or assumes that they are better because they believe they are elect, they've missed the point. We are to judge by deeds, words, creeds, ideas, etc. We cannot see the soul and we do not know whom God has chosen. It is sin of the highest degree to even guess at who is chosen. Of course we must have inequality in a form. Inequaltiy of ideas and actions. There are inferior ideas and inferior actions. I would not allow a Neo-Nazi or an unrepentant adulteror (sp?) to be ordained in the church. But create a heirarchy of souls is horrible. And also, the elect come from all walks of life, both the high and the low.

The reason election is seen as necessary for salvation is because everyone, save God and the angels is disgusting.

Great! Now what am I supposed to do with all this #2 holy water?

Have a bath! :D

So do you think debating AGAINST is easer than FOR in general or are you convinced that the judges were biased againsts Calvinism?

Arguing against is easier than arguing for simply because Calvinism is seen as horrendous by most people.

And it is quite possible that the judges were biased against Calvinism, but I don't know them and their own views on the matter should not have affected how they judged the quality of your argument.

We cannot see the soul and we do not know whom God has chosen. It is sin of the highest degree to even guess at who is chosen.

And, yet, you will pray for someone's salvation and, thus, assume they aren't already saved?

There are inferior ideas and inferior actions. I would not allow a Neo-Nazi or an unrepentant adulteror (sp?) to be ordained in the church.

Again, how do you know the Neo-Nazi or the adulterer isn't chosen? It shows you're guessing and, thus, committing what you're already said is the highest degree of sin.

This is why Jesus said to take care of the mote in your own eye before worrying about the speck in someone else's.

The reason election is seen as necessary for salvation is because everyone, save God and the angels is disgusting.

If you truly believe this (I don't) and you also truly believe that all those who are disgusting deserve Hell (and I don't believe that either) then no one should be saved.

If God is going to extend His mercy to those who deserve Hell, then He should either extend it to all of them or extend it on the basis of some actual moral standard of desert, rather than arbitrary selection.

The whole "Virgin Birth" thing was a mistake. It was based on a mistranslation. The guy who wrote that she was a virgin based it on the idea that Jesus' virgin birth was not the first in the Bible. But the OT story he cited told of a "young woman," not a virgin. It was the same with Mary. It meant "young woman" until someone came along and mixed it all up.

Sort of like how Moses got horns because "ray of light" and "horns" are similar looking words in Hebrew.

A mistranslation?!? From the BIBLE?!? But...but...what about infallibility? Wasn't God guiding the hands of the translators to make sure that His word wasn't misinterpreted? Or like me, is He too busy sipping margaritas in the back yard to really give a crap? :p

Considering the folks who were on this board who claimed to be Calvinists, and their attitude that they could treat everyone around them like subhumans, break every commandment without regret or penance and still be saved....


...no, I'd never consider Calvinism.

A mistranslation?!? From the BIBLE?!? But...but...what about infallibility? Wasn't God guiding the hands of the translators to make sure that His word wasn't misinterpreted? Or like me, is He too busy sipping margaritas in the back yard to really give a crap? :p

I like the way Dennis Miller put it (back when he was funny). He said something like "couldn't it be that we were God's 4th grade science fair project that he tossed in the closet and forgot about?"

And, yet, you will pray for someone's salvation and, thus, assume they aren't already saved?

Again, how do you know the Neo-Nazi or the adulterer isn't chosen? It shows you're guessing and, thus, committing what you're already said is the highest degree of sin.

This is why Jesus said to take care of the mote in your own eye before worrying about the speck in someone else's.

There are people in this world right now who are not saved. Most of the people I know, in fact. Jesus said that we would know a tree by its fruits and their fruit is rotten. But I do not know that it will always be that way. God can heal that tree the instant before it dies, when the person will repent and turn to Christ. The thing people forget about Calvinism is that it's not saying that the heathen in the African jungle making child sacrifices is going to be saved without change. It does say that if God chooses to do so, He will send a missionary to witness to the tribe or whatever. The Spirit will change the heathen's heart so that he will be able to respond to the witness and the heathen will repent (of his own free agency) and become a Christian. But until the heathen repents, I am under no obligation to give him acess to the full benefits of the Church. Am I to help him and witness to him and care for him? Yes! But Paul says to expell the wicked from among you. The people doing wrong intentionally and unrepentantly are not to be tolerated.

The Neo-Nazi or adulterer are not to be allowed in (meaning membership and certainly not leadership) until they have repented and they will only repent if they have been chosen. Are we to conduct witch trials and hunt out everyone who is lying? No! But we are to allow anyone in who claims to have repented, embraces correct doctrine, and appears to be living or trying to live a life true to the commandments of God.

Finally, I am to deal with my own problems before I deal with others. But sometimes things overlap, and it is my problem, along with every other Christian, to ensure the purity of the Church. It is also my problem to spread correct doctrine diligently. This includes salvation and the praying for particular salvation. However, generally and particurally, you are correct: I should aim to be above reproach in every situation before I enter a situation, knowing, of course, that as a sinner, I will never truly succeed at that in this world.

If you truly believe this (I don't) and you also truly believe that all those who are disgusting deserve Hell (and I don't believe that either) then no one should be saved.

If God is going to extend His mercy to those who deserve Hell, then He should either extend it to all of them or extend it on the basis of some actual moral standard of desert, rather than arbitrary selection.

It's not arbitrary in that there is no basis. Just because we cannot see the basis, doesn't mean it's not there.

The reason election is seen as necessary for salvation is because everyone, save God and the angels is disgusting.

and yet we are all god's children instructed by jesus to call him daddy instead of father. would YOUR father be a good dad if he considered you and your siblings (if any) disgusting? if he chose to send one of you to college/have one inherit his estate and left the other with nothing because he wasnt his favorite?

it just doesnt fit with the message of the gospels.

Considering the folks who were on this board who claimed to be Calvinists, and their attitude that they could treat everyone around them like subhumans, break every commandment without regret or penance and still be saved....


...no, I'd never consider Calvinism.

When did I ever say any of those things and when did I do one of those things without afterward being convicted and repenting? You can only tell from this thread, but can you see it here?

If anything I've been correcting those damnable heresies.

I like the way Dennis Miller put it (back when he was funny). He said something like "couldn't it be that we were God's 4th grade science fair project that he tossed in the closet and forgot about?"

That would certainly explain the smell. :p

and yet we are all god's children instructed by jesus to call him daddy instead of father. would YOUR father be a good dad if he considered you and your siblings (if any) disgusting? if he chose to send one of you to college/have one inherit his estate and left the other with nothing because he wasnt his favorite?

it just doesnt fit with the message of the gospels.

Except that Jesus mentions the elect several times and says that His Father gave them to Him.

To my knowledge, Jesus never told us to call God the Father "Daddy" and I must say that I think that is a dangerous level of boldness with God. Jesus had a different relationship with Him than any of us could ever have. If you have Biblical evidence please show me so that I may be corrected.

And God cannot look on sin. You don't have a perfect human father so you can't fully understand your relationship to your heavenly Father (if, indeed, He is your Father). The relationship between God and us is mirrored in the family relationship, but it is not exactly the same.

It's not arbitrary in that there is no basis. Just because we cannot see the basis, doesn't mean it's not there.

There may be a basis, but it is not a morally relevant one. This is the logical conclusion of total depravity - we are all evil, and the only way we can ever be good is if God intervenes and makes us so. Thus, our "goodness" has nothing to do with us, it is merely God's will. Any goodness we possess is not merit-worthy, because it's the work of God, not of us. It follows that any distinction in reward and punishment is based on something other than merit, and is thus immoral and morally arbitrary.

Calvinism is probably one of the worst things to ever come out of the judeo-christian tradition (worst being some Mennonites and radical Islam). Catholic guilt trips mixed with a pathological sense of moderation in everything.

There may be a basis, but it is not a morally relevant one. This is the logical conclusion of total depravity - we are all evil, and the only way we can ever be good is if God intervenes and makes us so. Thus, our "goodness" has nothing to do with us, it is merely God's will. Any goodness we possess is not merit-worthy, because it's the work of God, not of us. It follows that any distinction in reward and punishment is based on something other than merit, and is thus immoral and morally arbitrary.

You miss the point that grace is a gift, not a reward.

Calvinism is probably one of the worst things to ever come out of the judeo-christian tradition (worst being some Mennonites and radical Islam). Catholic guilt trips mixed with a pathological sense of moderation in everything.

I don't know about that, but the best thing to come out of it was the music. :)

oh! shit
i just lost myself.
i thought it was about
belief :upyours:

I don't know about that, but the best thing to come out of it was the music. :)

Amazing Grace a very calvinist song.

Or were you talking about something else?

You miss the point that grace is a gift, not a reward.

So? If I only give gifts to white people, and simply won't give them to non-whites (though I have the opportunity) is that not immoral?

It does say that if God chooses to do so, He will send a missionary to witness to the tribe or whatever.

Interesting. I've always understood omnipotent/omniscient to mean "God doesn't need us". Why would God send a missionary? Why not just a message?

If it mattered, God would. However, God doesn't. For some strange reason, God only seems to speak to televangelists and missionaries. Odd.

But, then, I am not now, nor have I ever been, in any way a Christian. No, I'm not elected and, no, I don't really have a desire to be.

IMHO: Any deity that needs people - imperfect, full of sin, grubby, filthy, disgusting people - to spread its message is not worthy of worship.

Except that Jesus mentions the elect several times and says that His Father gave them to Him.

To my knowledge, Jesus never told us to call God the Father "Daddy" and I must say that I think that is a dangerous level of boldness with God. Jesus had a different relationship with Him than any of us could ever have. If you have Biblical evidence please show me so that I may be corrected.

And God cannot look on sin. You don't have a perfect human father so you can't fully understand your relationship to your heavenly Father (if, indeed, He is your Father). The relationship between God and us is mirrored in the family relationship, but it is not exactly the same.

check your bible. jesus told us to call god daddy just before he gets into the whole lords prayer thing. and while youre checking your bible how about a hint as to these verses where jesus talks about an elite elect?

god can do whatever he wants. how did an omnipotent god get so weak that he cant look on sin?? he's the one who made it.

god is everyones father, loves everyone and wants everyone to join him in the afterlife. he must then make it possible for every person on earth to find a way to do so. not that everyone on earth WILL, just that they CAN.

Amazing Grace a very calvinist song.

Or were you talking about something else?

Actually, I was referring in a more generic way. Modern music and the written system we use today owes it's existence to Pope Gregory I. Also, most modern music can trace it's roots back to Gregorian Chant and other religious works and composers. *nod*

check your bible. jesus told us to call god daddy just before he gets into the whole lords prayer thing. and while youre checking your bible how about a hint as to these verses where jesus talks about an elite elect?

god can do whatever he wants. how did an omnipotent god get so weak that he cant look on sin?? he's the one who made it.

god is everyones father, loves everyone and wants everyone to join him in the afterlife. he must then make it possible for every person on earth to find a way to do so. not that everyone on earth WILL, just that they CAN.
Yeah!!!!!!!!!
Check it man.

No,God does not exist and is an illogical idea. The idea that we have no free will with a mighty,omnipotent god controlling everything about us is not only illogical, and seems rather unfair to the people judged to be sent to hell, since it's not they're fault, since they are been pre-destined and had no fault or say in it at all.

I'm Buddhist, not athiest, by the way.There's a slight difference,except in terms of whether there's a god or not.

So? If I only give gifts to white people, and simply won't give them to non-whites (though I have the opportunity) is that not immoral?

No, because the Blacks don't deserve the gift. That's why it's a gift. You're receiving something you don't deserve. You would be rewarding them or awarding them (I haven't given much though to the differences between those two words) if they deserved it.

Interesting. I've always understood omnipotent/omniscient to mean "God doesn't need us". Why would God send a missionary? Why not just a message?

If it mattered, God would. However, God doesn't. For some strange reason, God only seems to speak to televangelists and missionaries. Odd.

But, then, I am not now, nor have I ever been, in any way a Christian. No, I'm not elected and, no, I don't really have a desire to be.

IMHO: Any deity that needs people - imperfect, full of sin, grubby, filthy, disgusting people - to spread its message is not worthy of worship.

Who said God needs us? They won't believe if they do not hear the message so someone needs to take the message, whether it's a missionary, an angel, or God himself (the conversion of Paul) is for God to decide.

If I said that God needs us, I was being careless in my wording. God does not in any way need Man.

No, because the Blacks don't deserve the gift. That's why it's a gift. You're receiving something you don't deserve. You would be rewarding them or awarding them (I haven't given much though to the differences between those two words) if they deserved it.

But if we're going to give some people things they don't deserve, shouldn't we give all people things they don't deserve?

Wow, I'm so preferring the relatively close relationship I've fostered with the aspect of God that revealed itself to me. This 'off the shelf' version just isn't anywhere near to being a proper fit.

Who said God needs us? They won't believe if they do not hear the message so someone needs to take the message, whether it's a missionary, an angel, or God himself (the conversion of Paul) is for God to decide.

If I said that God needs us, I was being careless in my wording. God does not in any way need Man.

HMMMMM so you think that god is constantly appearing to the approximately 4 billion nonchristians in the world who have no chance to get a true picture of the correct form of christianity? shouldnt we be hearing more about this?

and you think that some poor uneducated peasant girl in rural india would get a visitation from god and come to a perfectly western idea of christianity? that her native culture wouldnt "taint" it with indian concepts? that she has a chance to suddenly become a good calvinist?

shouldnt there be huge communities of christians in the nonchristian parts of the world if that were true?

I'm pretty happy with Judaism. I sorta excluded Calvinism along with the rest of Christianity.

Wow, I'm so preferring the relatively close relationship I've fostered with the aspect of God that revealed itself to me. This 'off the shelf' version just isn't anywhere near to being a proper fit.

Amen, brother. :)

Nothing good ever comes from large groups of people worshipping together. Especially under the leadership of an elite few.

check your bible. jesus told us to call god daddy just before he gets into the whole lords prayer thing. and while youre checking your bible how about a hint as to these verses where jesus talks about an elite elect?

god can do whatever he wants. how did an omnipotent god get so weak that he cant look on sin?? he's the one who made it.

god is everyones father, loves everyone and wants everyone to join him in the afterlife. he must then make it possible for every person on earth to find a way to do so. not that everyone on earth WILL, just that they CAN.

Elect verses: Matthew 24:22
Matthew 24:24
Matthew 24:31
Luke 18:7
Chosen verse: John 13:18

I can't find the place where it says that God gave the elect to Jesus, but I'm still looking. and I didn't find Jesus command to address God as "Daddy"

And God can do whatever He wants, but He wants nothing outside His nature.

God cannot look at sin: Habakkuk 1:13

Sin does not exist in itself. It is a word used to descride lack of obedience to the Law, in much the same way that darkness describes a lack of light or cold desrcibes a lack of heat. Therefore it cannot be created and a perfect God would never create it anyway.

And God doesn't have to do anything. He could let everyone perish. The question isn't: "Why doesn't God save everyone?" The question is "Why does God save anyone?"

Actually, I was referring in a more generic way. Modern music and the written system we use today owes it's existence to Pope Gregory I. Also, most modern music can trace it's roots back to Gregorian Chant and other religious works and composers. *nod*

They weren't really Calvinist, so I must have msunderstood your point.

But if we're going to give some people things they don't deserve, shouldn't we give all people things they don't deserve?

at least shouldnt this gift be given at random? if its all white people, then its NOT random (supposing a huge number of gifts in a population not composed of only white poeple) and the giver really DOES have a preference for one kind of person.

They weren't really Calvinist, so I must have msunderstood your point.

Same roots. Calvinism evolved from catholicism.

Calvinism is to elitist and exclusionary, and contrary to the spirit of Jesus for my liking.

But if we're going to give some people things they don't deserve, shouldn't we give all people things they don't deserve?

No. Why should I? It's mine to do with what I want and I don't want to give it to them. That sounds cruel, but that's the reasoning. And again, they don't deserve it. No matter how much it seems that they might deserve, they don't. Simply because I give something to someone else, doesn't mean I need to give it to another.

"Jewish theology and cultural traditions" do it too. Judaism, while it is far from as consumed as Christianity over the concept, does have a concept of Original Sin. Humanity fell by rejecting God in the Garden; it will be reunited with God when the Messiah comes.

But it doesn't believe that humans are born in to sin; it happened, and it was the first sin of man but we are not guilty for it and are not punished for it. Human beings are born with free will and the ability to decide between good and evil, and it is their actions while alive that matter most.

I, personally, regard the whole thing as nonsense, and did so even in my religious times. Human beings are what we make of ourselves.

That makes sense. I personally believe we go to the afterlife of the God that we believe in and that our actions are the most important thing of all. It works for me and makes sense, so I see no reason why it's less valid than any other system.


According to the Bible itself, not merely Jewish theology.

I use it as an umbrella term to refer to everything in Judaism (or any religion with a defined theology); it's a lot easier than having to specifically mention each work and source of belief.

This is one of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith, though I'm not exactly sure why it is supposed to be so significant.

Yes, but Moses never wrote any of them. They were composed by later authors, several according to the modern analyses, and compiled together from different texts and teachings by editors.

My knowledge of Judaism is modest at best, so I couldn't answer you really without relying on second-hand interpretation. Unfortunately, I don't think there has been any discussion of Jewish beliefs in a long time on this forum...

So in the end, who knows?

I think if we do good in this life, we're going to turn out alright in the afterlife. And if I end up in hell for it, at least I'm not going to be the only one so there's nothing to worry about. After all, it means at least 3 out of 4 of all the people who have ever lived are going to be there along with me.

Interestingly, almost no near-death experiences or afterlife experiences have had any kind of Hell in them, even for those who don't follow Judaism/Christianity. Even more interesting, these peoples' afterlives correspond to their religious beliefs in life.

Elect verses: Matthew 24:22
Matthew 24:24
Matthew 24:31
Luke 18:7
Chosen verse: John 13:18

I can't find the place where it says that God gave the elect to Jesus, but I'm still looking. and I didn't find Jesus command to address God as "Daddy"

And God can do whatever He wants, but He wants nothing outside His nature.

God cannot look at sin: Habakkuk 1:13

Sin does not exist in itself. It is a word used to descride lack of obedience to the Law, in much the same way that darkness describes a lack of light or cold desrcibes a lack of heat. Therefore it cannot be created and a perfect God would never create it anyway.

And God doesn't have to do anything. He could let everyone perish. The question isn't: "Why doesn't God save everyone?" The question is "Why does God save anyone?"

oh give me the quotes, my bandwidth is approximately 1/1000th of yours. it takes me forever to look stuff up

in return ill show you where jesus says to call god "abba" which is aramaic for daddy.

HMMMMM so you think that god is constantly appearing to the approximately 4 billion nonchristians in the world who have no chance to get a true picture of the correct form of christianity? shouldnt we be hearing more about this?

and you think that some poor uneducated peasant girl in rural india would get a visitation from god and come to a perfectly western idea of christianity? that her native culture wouldnt "taint" it with indian concepts? that she has a chance to suddenly become a good calvinist?

shouldnt there be huge communities of christians in the nonchristian parts of the world if that were true?

You're taking what I say here out of context with everything I've said before. God ordains means as well as people. If God appeared to a girl in India, he would provide means for her to come to true Christianity (not necessarily Calvinism). What those means are differ from situation to situation. God appeared to Paul and sent him to the prophet to be healed and receive instruction. God could do that to the girl in India, or He could use a missionsary, or an angel or any combination He chose.

No. Why should I? It's mine to do with what I want and I don't want to give it to them. That sounds cruel, but that's the reasoning. And again, they don't deserve it. No matter how much it seems that they might deserve, they don't. Simply because I give something to someone else, doesn't mean I need to give it to another.

But this is God we're talking about. Not a human being. With a human being, we shouldn't be concerned with occasional arbitrary judgments, especially when they concern things that aren't morally significant. But God is omnibenevolent and the choice of whether or not to subject someone to eternal horrific torment is not morally insignificant.

I believe in equal treatment. If I treat one person one way and another another way, I should have a good reason for it - unless it's morally insignificant. If I lack such a good reason, I am treating people unfairly. It doesn't matter what kind of treatment they "deserve." If everyone deserves a certain kind of treatment, but you spare some and subject the others to it, that's still not fair.

at least shouldnt this gift be given at random? if its all white people, then its NOT random (supposing a huge number of gifts in a population not composed of only white poeple) and the giver really DOES have a preference for one kind of person.

But salvation isn't just for Whites. It's not just for one gender, sexual orientation (though the Bible makes clear heterosexuality is the way to go, another thread perhaps), race, hair color, size of any body or body part, wealth, political view (though some political views are more Biblical than others), etc. and people from all these backgrounds have been chosen for salvation.

But it's not random. We don't see the air, but it supports all living things. We don't see God's design, but it supports everything. We need special sight to see both.

Same roots. Calvinism evolved from catholicism.

Just as all Protestants did, though I guess Calvinism is closer to the Roman Catholic idea of original sin, though the two are not totally the same.

If by "considered" you mean "read its doctrines" then yes, I have, and I have judged it in the same league of retardation as Communism, Mormonism and jumping off cliffs while on fire.

I was raised the Calvinist way, and as i came of age, realising the damage it had caused me, and was causing others, i thoroughtly rejected it.

I still fail to see why one would want a spiritual totalitarian to declare "free will" beside "Do as I say or burn forever".

I see that as the height of posturing hypocrisy. Basically, if that is God, I'll be the first person to flip him off to his face, if I get a chance.

oh give me the quotes, my bandwidth is approximately 1/1000th of yours. it takes me forever to look stuff up

in return ill show you where jesus says to call god "abba" which is aramaic for daddy.

Habakkuk 1:13 - You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong [in the context of a larger passage underlining God's hate for sin]

Matthew 24:22,24, 31 - And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. [24] For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders so as to lead astry, if possible, even the elect [31] And he [the Son of Man, Jesus] will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the earth to another.

Luke 18:7 - And will not God give justice to his elect who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?

John 13:18 - I am not speaking of all of you: I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture must be fulfilled. He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. [Jesus is speaking of his true followers living as servants]

But it doesn't believe that humans are born in to sin; it happened, and it was the first sin of man but we are not guilty for it and are not punished for it. Human beings are born with free will and the ability to decide between good and evil, and it is their actions while alive that matter most.

Yes, more or less. Rather than focusing on "flawed nature," more relevance is put on the notion of a disunity with God. Also, there is a parallel narrative with similar elements dealing with the expulsion from the Holy Land and the current Diaspora, which also will end with the coming of the Messiah.

That makes sense. I personally believe we go to the afterlife of the God that we believe in and that our actions are the most important thing of all. It works for me and makes sense, so I see no reason why it's less valid than any other system.

I like it; it gives us choice and judges us on merits. What happens to atheists? Are we consigned to oblivion?

I use it as an umbrella term to refer to everything in Judaism (or any religion with a defined theology); it's a lot easier than having to specifically mention each work and source of belief.

Yes, but I make the distinction because Jewish theology and belief and what the Bible actually says are two different things, just as with Christian theology and belief. Jews get the Old Testament better than Christians do, but that doesn't mean they get it right.

If I want to look for Jewish theology and belief, I go to the Talmud or look at the opinions of the modern denominations; if I want to know what the Bible says, I read the Bible.

My knowledge of Judaism is modest at best, so I couldn't answer you really without relying on second-hand interpretation. Unfortunately, I don't think there has been any discussion of Jewish beliefs in a long time on this forum...

There was a "Judaism" thread back a few months ago.

I think if we do good in this life, we're going to turn out alright in the afterlife.

I hope so. I want an afterlife. Though depending on what you mean by "do good," I don't know if I qualify.

And if I end up in hell for it, at least I'm not going to be the only one so there's nothing to worry about. After all, it means at least 3 out of 4 of all the people who have ever lived are going to be there along with me.

I take comfort in the fact that at least I'll know that I angered whatever deity is up there enough to get me to suffer eternal torment; by the fact that He is willing to subject so many to eternal torment, He clearly deserves it.

That's one thing the deity can't deny me - the fact that I am free now, and if He torments me in Hell, the torment will be due to my actions, to my will, and will merely prove that my fate is my own, and not His work. He could not sway me, and thus He abuses me instead; this is not a matter of shame but rather of pride.

Which, of course, is why I don't like Calvinism.

Interestingly, almost no near-death experiences or afterlife experiences have had any kind of Hell in them, even for those who don't follow Judaism/Christianity. Even more interesting, these peoples' afterlives correspond to their religious beliefs in life.

I do like to think that if there is salvation, we will all be saved. And I have no trouble accepting the notion that the deity/deities is/are pluralistic.

But this is God we're talking about. Not a human being. With a human being, we shouldn't be concerned with occasional arbitrary judgments, especially when they concern things that aren't morally significant. But God is omnibenevolent and the choice of whether or not to subject someone to eternal horrific torment is not morally insignificant.

I believe in equal treatment. If I treat one person one way and another another way, I should have a good reason for it - unless it's morally insignificant. If I lack such a good reason, I am treating people unfairly. It doesn't matter what kind of treatment they "deserve." If everyone deserves a certain kind of treatment, but you spare some and subject the others to it, that's still not fair.

You're right it isn't fair. But if you want what's fair, burn. I don't want what's fair, so I'll take mercy, which has been offered to everyone, but only some will take it, those whose hearts have been made able to.

I would like to point out that you can be a Christian and not a Calvinist. If you are looking at all parts of Scripture and not adding anything to Scritpure and you cannot see where there is support for predestination, you should not support it. And I believe (me personally) that God will say on Judgment Day that you were in error, but not sin in this matter.

But if you want what's fair, burn.

I will, then. Better to be defiantly right and suffer for it than to be servile to a deity who believes in arbitrarily torturing people.

You're right it isn't fair. But if you want what's fair, burn. I don't want what's fair, so I'll take mercy, which has been offered to everyone, but only some will take it, those whose hearts have been made able to.

See this is what most people dislike about Calvanism. That a supposedly "good, kind, loving God" is not fair, because if he isn't he is not good he's a prick.

You're right it isn't fair. But if you want what's fair, burn. I don't want what's fair, so I'll take mercy, which has been offered to everyone, but only some will take it, those whose hearts have been made able to.

Which is an admission that the god of Calvinism is an elitist, arrogant fathead with no regard for its creations. Your god is not all loving, because it does not love all things. Your god does not deserve my worship.

For the record, I am atheist, and hold almost all religion in contempt. Calvinism simply draws more ire since it is up front about its nasty side.

I will, then. Better to be defiantly right and suffer for it than to be servile to a deity who believes in arbitrarily torturing people.

:eek:

That was an expression. I really don't want you to do that.

See this is what most people dislike about Calvanism. That a supposedly "good, kind, loving God" is not fair, because if he isn't he is not good he's a prick.

What does it mean to be fair? In your own words.

:eek:

That was an expression. I really don't want you to do that.

That dosen't make what he said in less true.

Which is an admission that the god of Calvinism is an elitist, arrogant fathead with no regard for its creations. Your god is not all loving, because it does not love all things. Your god does not deserve my worship.

For the record, I am atheist, and hold almost all religion in contempt. Calvinism simply draws more ire since it is up front about its nasty side.

Which could be a virtue: being up front with its "nasty side"

What does it mean to be fair? In your own words.

I can tell you what I veiw as being unfair damning people to an eternity of torment from before they are born so that they have no chance in avoiding it.

Which could be a virtue: being up front with its "nasty side"

I can respect that.

I can tell you what I veiw as being unfair damning people to an eternity of torment from before they are born so that they have no chance in avoiding it.

Which is why I started this whole thread. Read a pro-predestination book. Ligonier ministries has some good ones. Be open to it. Even if you never plan on changing your mind, you will understand the whole thing much better and will have fewer statements like the one above to make. You may still disagree, but you'll know what arguments to use instead of attacking that which really isn't a problem anyway, which is what you did above. I would try to explain it to you, but I've been trying to explain it to everyone for the last 10 pages and I have begun to debate it which is not good in this setting.

Feel free to TG me if you want to discuss it more, and I'll try to explain it to you, if you want, but this setting is not conducive (sp?) to it.

A quick explination on the above: everyone deserves death, and they want nothing to do with God, so they would prefer damnation to God unless their hearts are changed.

:eek:

That was an expression. I really don't want you to do that.

I know you don't. But the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not going to be convinced by threats (though theoretically I might like to be). I will not, cannot accept the moral legitimacy of a system that tortures some people and saves others based on some random whim of the deity. It runs against every moral intuition I possess. If that means I will burn, so be it.

I know you don't. But the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not going to be convinced by threats (though theoretically I might like to be). I will not, cannot accept the moral legitimacy of a system that tortures some people and saves others based on some random whim of the deity. It runs against every moral intuition I possess. If that means I will burn, so be it.

To repeat what I said before:
I would like to point out that you can be a Christian and not a Calvinist. If you are looking at all parts of Scripture and not adding anything to Scritpure and you cannot see where there is support for predestination, you should not support it. And I believe (me personally) that God will say on Judgment Day that you were in error, but not sin in this matter.

:eek:

That was an expression. I really don't want you to do that.

The thing is that what you said is totally true. If the difference is between being fair and burning, and being an elitist and getting heaven, a good man will always choose to burn.

Those who choose otherwise are motivated to be good and kind for all the wrong reasons.

To repeat what I said before:
I would like to point out that you can be a Christian and not a Calvinist. If you are looking at all parts of Scripture and not adding anything to Scritpure and you cannot see where there is support for predestination, you should not support it. And I believe (me personally) that God will say on Judgment Day that you were in error, but not sin in this matter.

I am an atheist, not a Christian. If I were religious, I would accept the tenets of Judaism, not those of Christianity.

Unless that changes, I suppose that that means I am not one of the "elect." So be it.

The thing is that what you said is totally true. If the difference is between being fair and burning, and being an elitist and getting heaven, a good man will always choose to burn.

Those who choose otherwise are motivated to be good and kind for all the wrong reasons.

That's not what I meant. Being fair does not mean treating everyone equally. Being fair is giving people what they deserve. Justice is being fair toward wrong and reward is being fair toward right. Because Calvinism says that no mere human does right, everyone will get what is fair, what is just and that is damnation. Unless there is some way to save some (or all) and that is what the Gospel is about.

Considered, and rejected. I am not a predeterministic, robotic actor playing out God's great screenplay, thank you very much.

And nor am I, because I can say that I am God II without it being true. I can do things so anti-God that he would never 'make' me do them...

I am a believer in free will. The future is indefinite, the past unalterable.

And nor am I, because I can say that I am God II without it being true. I can do things so anti-God that he would never 'make' me do them...

I am a believer in free will. The future is indefinite, the past unalterable.

Calvinists believe in free will, too. Research it!

Calvinists believe in free will, too. Research it!

... oops. Wrong theory... Sorry.

Unless there is some way to save some (or all) and that is what the Gospel is about.

The problem is that you can't make the distinction you're trying to make. If being "totally depraved" is not enough to make certain people inaccessible to mercy, it should be not enough to make anyone inaccessible to mercy. If everyone is equally evil, the only justifiable courses of action are to save none (if they are so evil that subjecting them to eternal torment is necessary) or save all (if they are not so evil that they cannot have mercy).

What does it mean to be fair? In your own words.

Giving everyone what they deserve.

Example: A polytheist should NOT be sentenced to death.

Osama bin Laden (and his cronies) SHOULD be forced to rebuild what they so evilly destroyed.

... oops. Wrong theory... Sorry.

It's okay. Calvinism is complicated enough and it uses a lot of definitions that conflict with popular definitions. A pure Calvinist would say that we have free agency (what I think you're referring to as free will) and that free will was lost in the Fall. But that's for you to investigate. Another example is that the older generations of Calvinists refer to the Perseverence of the Saints, while more modern Calvinists refer to the Preservation of the Saints. It's the same thing, just a different emphasis in the names.

It's okay. Calvinism is complicated enough and it uses a lot of definitions that conflict with popular definitions. A pure Calvinist would say that we have free agency (what I think you're referring to as free will) and that free will was lost in the Fall. But that's for you to investigate. Another example is that the older generations of Calvinists refer to the Perseverence of the Saints, while more modern Calvinists refer to the Preservation of the Saints. It's the same thing, just a different emphasis in the names.

People who make a religion so hard to understand deserve all the critcism for their misuse/confusing use of words, IMO. Say what you mean and life is easier.

The problem is that you can't make the distinction you're trying to make. If being "totally depraved" is not enough to make certain people inaccessible to mercy, it should be not enough to make anyone inaccessible to mercy. If everyone is equally evil, the only justifiable courses of action are to save none (if they are so evil that subjecting them to eternal torment is necessary) or save all (if they are not so evil that they cannot have mercy).

Anyone can be given mercy, no matter how bad they are, so long as there is a substitute for the punishment as sin cannot go unpunished. Your point is that everyone should be treated exactly the same way: you don't believe that God (or any god) has the right to do with His creation as He wishes. I really can't convince you otherwise, obviously, and I assure you that you will not change my mind.

People who make a religion so hard to understand deserve all the critcism for their misuse/confusing use of words, IMO. Say what you mean and life is easier.

Arguably, we do say what we mean; the people aren't listening. That's with any in-depth topic, not just Calvinism. What is IMO?

The nederlands?

Arguably, we do say what we mean; the people aren't listening. That's with any in-depth topic, not just Calvinism. What is IMO?

In My Opinion.

The nederlands?

:confused:

Your point is that everyone should be treated exactly the same way

Unless we are making a distinction based on merit. Calvinism explicitly rejects that this is the basis; we are all "totally depraved", elect and non-elect alike.

you don't believe that God (or any god) has the right to do with His creation as He wishes.

Absolutely not. Creation does not give you an unlimited license. And even if He has this right, His behavior, as the Calvinists define it, is not compatible with omnibenevolence.

I really can't convince you otherwise, obviously, and I assure you that you will not change my mind.

Fair enough.

In My Opinion.

Thank you.

But salvation isn't just for Whites. It's not just for one gender, sexual orientation (though the Bible makes clear heterosexuality is the way to go, another thread perhaps), race, hair color, size of any body or body part, wealth, political view (though some political views are more Biblical than others), etc. and people from all these backgrounds have been chosen for salvation.

But it's not random. We don't see the air, but it supports all living things. We don't see God's design, but it supports everything. We need special sight to see both.

it must be random. the conversion of hindus to christianity is extremly rare and that is in places where there ARE christian missionaries.

why DOESNT god appear or send an angel or send missionaries to every single person who lives in an area where learning about true christianity is impossible? without some ability to learn the truth, they are born to be damned.

im having significant trouble finding the reference im looking for. very frustrating since i saw it a month or so ago. must be alzheimers kicking in.

:confused:
Tok toc!!!!!!!
CAL_Vi_Nnism!

And even if He has this right, His behavior, as the Calvinists define it, is not compatible with omnibenevolence.

Well, good and nice are not always the same thing.

That's not what I meant. Being fair does not mean treating everyone equally. Being fair is giving people what they deserve. Justice is being fair toward wrong and reward is being fair toward right. Because Calvinism says that no mere human does right, everyone will get what is fair, what is just and that is damnation. Unless there is some way to save some (or all) and that is what the Gospel is about.

So it's fair that the "special elite" gets saved, even though they suck the same as everyone else?

Sorry, I don't buy that bullshit. If everyone sucks, then everyone should be saved the same.

it must be random. the conversion of hindus to christianity is extremly rare and that is in places where there ARE christian missionaries.

why DOESNT god appear or send an angel or send missionaries to every single person who lives in an area where learning about true christianity is impossible? without some ability to learn the truth, they are born to be damned.

im having significant trouble finding the reference im looking for. very frustrating since i saw it a month or so ago. must be alzheimers kicking in.

My suspicion is that you didn't see it: you took one of those ideas that we are to follow Jesus and He addressed God as Abba, therefore we not only can but ought to. But, I've been wrong before.

I must admit that I have a great deal of trouble when someone addresses God as Daddy. We are but pitiful little dust bunnies and how dare we approach the throne of God at all. But we are able and not only that we are commanded to do so, a wonder unimaginable. Don't forget reverence. Though if you truly believe Scripture, the whole of Scripture and nothing but the Scripture commands that we address God as Daddy, you had better do it.

I have some Pentacostal friends who love that, but it really bothers me.

Tok toc!!!!!!!
CAL_Vi_Nnism!

I'm still confused. Unless your making a reference to TULIP, I don't know what you're talking about.

So it's fair that the "special elite" gets saved, even though they suck the same as everyone else?

Sorry, I don't buy that bullshit. If everyone sucks, then everyone should be saved the same.

Elite implies (if it does not truly mean) that they are better which is not true. It can be argued that their sins are worse, because they know better.

Elite implies (if it does not truly mean) that they are better which is not true. It can be argued that their sins are worse, because they know better.

Point still stands. If God is so omnipotent, why can't he save everyone?

I'm still confused. Unless your making a reference to TULIP, I don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry..i rest my case
i was off topic

Point still stands. If God is so omnipotent, why can't he save everyone?

No one said He couldn't. At least no true Calvinist.

So now you're going to ask "Why doesn't He save everyone?"

And I'm going to say again, "That isn't the question. The question is: 'Why does God save anyone?'"

Sorry..i rest my case
i was off topic

Okay. Still don't know what happened, but I'm moving on.

When did I ever say any of those things and when did I do one of those things without afterward being convicted and repenting? You can only tell from this thread, but can you see it here?

If anything I've been correcting those damnable heresies.

I never said you said them. I said that given those who came before you who acted in that way, I could not seriously consider Calvinism.

It was not an indictment of you, only those whom I had prior experience with.

I never said you said them. I said that given those who came before you who acted in that way, I could not seriously consider Calvinism.

It was not an indictment of you, only those whom I had prior experience with.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

No one said He couldn't. At least no true Calvinist.

So now you're going to ask "Why doesn't He save everyone?"

And I'm going to say again, "That isn't the question. The question is: 'Why does God save anyone?'"

So he's a lazy bastard who can save everyone but only saves a few. Basically.

God doesn't have to save anyone, but if he doesn't he's an irresponsible moralist. If he put us here and gave us free will and created the world we live in, with all its suffering, all of its indignity, and all of its creulty, why does he expect to act the way he wants just to be saved? He created this hell on earth. It's his problem if he can't be bothered to save even those who could not stay on his high and mighty pedestal.

He made the mess. If he were good, he would fix it.

So he's a lazy bastard who can save everyone but only saves a few. Basically.

God doesn't have to save anyone, but if he doesn't he's an irresponsible moralist. If he put us here and gave us free will and created the world we live in, with all its suffering, all of its indignity, and all of its creulty, why does he expect to act the way he wants just to be saved? He created this hell on earth. It's his problem if he can't be bothered to save even those who could not stay on his high and mighty pedestal.

He made the mess. If he were good, he would fix it.

Read the first five or six chapters of Genesis: He didn't create the problems. Man "released" the problems. and God is not obligated to fix it. Again, good and nice are not the same.

Considered, and rejected. I am not a predeterministic, robotic actor playing out God's great screenplay, thank you very much.

Very good.

I considered it, too. No way. I don't want to be a spoilt, egocentric brat talking to a fluffy tiger all day.

You're right it isn't fair. But if you want what's fair, burn. I don't want what's fair, so I'll take mercy, which has been offered to everyone, but only some will take it, those whose hearts have been made able to.

How can *everyone* have been offered mercy, if by your own words there are those who accept God and follow his commandments, but will not be given the gift of salvation because they are not elect?

Read the first five or six chapters of Genesis: He didn't create the problems. Man "released" the problems. and God is not obligated to fix it. Again, good and nice are not the same.

He created the problem. He gave us free will. He put the problem there to be gained.

It's still his problem.

Edit: If he's perfect, why did he have to cast Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden in the first place? Could it be because he didn't want humans to actually have the free will he gave us?

How can *everyone* have been offered mercy, if by your own words there are those who accept God and follow his commandments, but will not be given the gift of salvation because they are not elect?

WHERE DID I SAY THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL ACCEPT GOD AND FOLLOW HIS COMMANDMENTS BUT WHO ARE NOT OF THE ELECT?

I need to correct that right now, because I gravely mispoke if I did. It is only the elect who are able to follow God's commandments properly and to "accept" (by accept I mean respond positively to the call of the Gospel) Him.

He created the problem. He gave us free will. He put the problem there to be gained.

It's still his problem.

Edit: If he's perfect, why did he have to cast Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden in the first place? Could it be because he didn't want humans to actually have the free will he gave us?

He did not create the problem. He knew what was going to happen, but He didn't do it.

He did not create the problem. He knew what was going to happen, but He didn't do it.

Er... Yes. He did. Sorry, if I leave a nail in the road knowing that a blind man will step on it, I'm creating the problem.

All of this ignores the fact that he speaks of "Free will" and then does not do as he says. That's hypocrisy.

My suspicion is that you didn't see it: you took one of those ideas that we are to follow Jesus and He addressed God as Abba, therefore we not only can but ought to. But, I've been wrong before.

I must admit that I have a great deal of trouble when someone addresses God as Daddy. We are but pitiful little dust bunnies and how dare we approach the throne of God at all. But we are able and not only that we are commanded to do so, a wonder unimaginable. Don't forget reverence. Though if you truly believe Scripture, the whole of Scripture and nothing but the Scripture commands that we address God as Daddy, you had better do it.

I have some Pentacostal friends who love that, but it really bothers me.

i had to look up the old thread. i seem to have been satisfied by a verse from romans

15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[a] And by him we cry, "Abba,[b] Father."

normally i dont give a fuck about anything paul has to say but perhaps you find it persuasive.

Er... Yes. He did. Sorry, if I leave a nail in the road knowing that a blind man will step on it, I'm creating the problem.

All of this ignores the fact that he speaks of "Free will" and then does not do as he says. That's hypocrisy.

Have you investigated the Calvinist claims about free will? If so, what are they?

WHERE DID I SAY THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL ACCEPT GOD AND FOLLOW HIS COMMANDMENTS BUT WHO ARE NOT OF THE ELECT?

I need to correct that right now, because I gravely mispoke if I did. It is only the elect who are able to follow God's commandments properly and to "accept" (by accept I mean respond positively to the call of the Gospel) Him.

Pardon me, but have I been rude and shouted at you?
If you don't want to talk about this, why on Earth did you post it?

You say that *some* are predestined (elect) to be saved and others aren't.
If someone is NOT predestined to be saved, but believes in God and follows his commandments, it therefore follows that they will NOT be saved.

No one said He couldn't. At least no true Calvinist.

So now you're going to ask "Why doesn't He save everyone?"

And I'm going to say again, "That isn't the question. The question is: 'Why does God save anyone?'"


why is up to debate, god DID save everyone through the sacrifice of jesus.

jesus is the new covenant, the spiritual equivalent of noah's flood that started humanity all over from the (spiritual) beginning.

before jesus no one had a chance to get to heaven, after jesus everyone has that chance. "the elect" is up to god.

Have you investigated the Calvinist claims about free will? If so, what are they?


If I remember Calvin himself seemed to suffer from a dualist philosophy in which we had free will which was pre-determined.

Then again, that was a year ago, and I was ignoring it in favor of a more interesting game of tic-tac-toe

i had to look up the old thread. i seem to have been satisfied by a verse from romans

normally i dont give a f*** about anything paul has to say but perhaps you find it persuasive.

Interesting, I'll have to toss that around for a while.

What's also interesting is that that verse is from the section in Romans where it begins to discuss predestination.

why is up to debate, god DID save everyone through the sacrifice of jesus.

jesus is the new covenant, the spiritual equivalent of noah's flood that started humanity all over from the (spiritual) beginning.

before jesus no one had a chance to get to heaven, after jesus everyone has that chance. "the elect" is up to god.

No, God didn't save everybody. What you probably mean is that the offer of salvation was and is made to all. But to say the God saves everybody is false. Otherwise there would be no need for hell for Man, which the Bible makes pretty clear exists.

Who said that "the elect" wasn't up to God. That's the very point I'm arguing.

If I remember Calvin himself seemed to suffer from a dualist philosophy in which we had free will which was pre-determined.

Then again, that was a year ago, and I was ignoring it in favor of a more interesting game of tic-tac-toe

Ahhh... find out a little more and then TG me.

Otherwise there would be no need for hell for Man, which the Bible makes pretty clear exists.


Not so clear.

I have looked into it, I have some serious issues with it.

I do not agree or believe in election, I don't believe some people are doomed to hell from the very beginning, that is a monstrous idea, in my opinion.

I believe Jesus' death atoned for the sins of all of mankind, not a limited number of people.

I believe faith can save people, but I also don't believe God condemns those who have never heard the gospel. I believe if a person is truly good in their heart, they are saved.

I hate Calvinism.

Even if it were proven to be true, I would not become a Calvinist. I'd rather burn in hell than worship a malevolent being, which is what the god of Calvinism is.

In it, it is pre-determined that god sends a lot of people to hell, for no reason.

I figure I'm probably going to hell anyway, so what does what I do matter when there's no correlation between crime and punishment? I'm probably damned just because some asshole god feels like it, according to Calvinism.


And yes, I have discussed Calvinism with Calvinists.

Pardon me, but have I been rude and shouted at you?
If you don't want to talk about this, why on Earth did you post it?

You say that *some* are predestined (elect) to be saved and others aren't.
If someone is NOT predestined to be saved, but believes in God and follows his commandments, it therefore follows that they will NOT be saved.

I did huge letters because I try to make sure that I never say that. Sorry if I came on overly strong. But, they are saved, because they believe, and they believe because they are elected.

You say that *some* are predestined (elect) to be saved and others aren't.
If someone is NOT predestined to be saved, but believes in God and follows his commandments, it therefore follows that they will NOT be saved.

I think you are misunderstanding the Calvinist framework.

Everyone is totally depraved. Of his or her own accord, no person would follow God's commandments and accept the Gospel as he or she should. Thus, someone who does do that is someone who God has offered mercy to; such a person has been elected. It is impossible to both be properly faithful and not be predestined to be saved, because God saves you by making you properly faithful when, without Him, you would just be totally depraved and would never do such a thing.

Thus, someone properly faithful need not fear; God has elected him or her, and that will never be revoked.

Not so clear.

Read Revelation.

I think you are misunderstanding the Calvinist framework.

Everyone is totally depraved. Of his or her own accord, no person would follow God's commandments and accept the Gospel as he or she should. Thus, someone who does do that is someone who God has offered mercy to; such a person has been elected. It is impossible to both be properly faithful and not be predestined to be saved, because God saves you by making you properly faithful when, without Him, you would just be totally depraved and would never do such a thing.

Thus, someone properly faithful need not fear; God has elected him or her, and that will never be revoked.

Thank you. That was very good.

I always become so emotionally attached to the discussion that I can never give as clear an explanation as I would like. :headbang:

I'd rather burn in hell than worship a malevolent being, which is what the god of Calvinism is.

In it, it is pre-determined that god sends a lot of people to hell, for no reason.

Calvinism's God, as well as the God of all Christians, is very benevolent. But benevolent (doing or inclined to good) is not the same as nice or pleasant.

They are sent to hell for rejecting God, which they were commanded not to do.

I think you are misunderstanding the Calvinist framework.

Everyone is totally depraved. Of his or her own accord, no person would follow God's commandments and accept the Gospel as he or she should. Thus, someone who does do that is someone who God has offered mercy to; such a person has been elected. It is impossible to both be properly faithful and not be predestined to be saved, because God saves you by making you properly faithful when, without Him, you would just be totally depraved and would never do such a thing.

Thus, someone properly faithful need not fear; God has elected him or her, and that will never be revoked.

OK. If that is true, why is Calvinism so special? What makes YOU different from Catholics or Lutherans or East Orthodox... people? :headbang:

Read Revelation.

I have, many times.
I presume you are referring to Revelation 20 when death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire and also those whose name is not found in the book of life?

If Hades is thrown into it, and if it is the SECOND death, then it doesn't seem to be the hell preached from so many pulpits. It appears to be a final DESTRUCTION of those that oppose God.

Funny, Newsweek and ABC said the exact opposite. Those who prayed and who were prayed for were healthier, healed more quickly, and live longer. Of course, those are poor reasons to pray (in my opinion).
Mayo Clinic study showed prayer has exactly no effect.

**Head slowly expands, alarmingly close to exploding**

Makes... no... sense... too... much... hypocrisy and... contradiction.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!

Funny, Newsweek and ABC said the exact opposite. Those who prayed and who were prayed for were healthier, healed more quickly, and live longer. Of course, those are poor reasons to pray (in my opinion).
Placebo effect.

I am a five point Calvinist. When I first studied TULIP, I disagreed with a coulple of the points, but I was curious and looked at what the Bible has to say, and it made a lot of sense and proved to be correct.

OK. If that is true, why is Calvinism so special? What makes YOU different from Catholics or Lutherans or East Orthodox... people? :headbang:

Because of the emphasis placed on God's choosing who will repent.

I am a five point Calvinist. When I first studied TULIP, I disagreed with a coulple of the points, but I was curious and looked at what the Bible has to say, and it made a lot of sense and proved to be correct.

AMEN!

I usually don't do that and it sounded incredibly corny, but I don't care.

Que sera, sera.
Whatever will be, will be.
The future's not ours to see.
Que sera, sera.
What will be, will be.





No thank you.

Calvinism's God, as well as the God of all Christians, is very benevolent. But benevolent (doing or inclined to good) is not the same as nice or pleasant.

They are sent to hell for rejecting God, which they were commanded not to do.

Seems to me like your God's got some pride issues.

He put us on this world, how dare he judge us? He created this hellhole. A good God would not hold the shoe of damnation over people living in a cruel world. Only an evil and selfish God would do that.

We need another poll option.

Calvinism - studied and debated and cannot prove one side over the other, so chooses to be uncommitted on the issue of predestination, expects answers to this question to be found in heaven after the fact... In the mean time, even if there is, or is not predestination, since I don’t know what the outcome is, it’s the same as if it isn’t determined yet from my point of view.

Seems to me like your God's got some pride issues.

He put us on this world, how dare he judge us? He created this hellhole. A good God would not hold the shoe of damnation over people living in a cruel world. Only an evil and selfish God would do that.


He can dare to judge us because he came here himself to deliver us...

He can dare to judge us because he came here himself to deliver us...

He doesn't seem to be delivering those he predetermened to hell.

He doesn't seem to be delivering those he predetermened to hell.

Did he predetermine or simply make a perfect prediction?

Did he predetermine or simply make a perfect prediction?

From what it sounds like the Calvanists believe he predetermined them.

From what it sounds like the Calvanists believe he predetermined them.

It would be the same.

The Chaos Theory (everything related to everything else, the butterfly effect causing storms on the other side of the planet etc.,) suggests that IF we can know all the variables, ALL of the specifics of everything, we could simply do an arithmetic equation to solve and find the answer to all questions. If this, then that, and so on and so forth. The only unknowns that exists to us today are simply do to our inability to KNOW all of the variables. God, on the other hand, can know all of the variables and should therefore be able to make perfect predictions and because he doesn't need to guess or average anything out he will always be right...

He can dare to judge us because he came here himself to deliver us...

Not a justification. He made us, he made the world. He made both things imperfect. That means he doesn't get the right to judge us, because he made us this way. Simple as that.

*grumbles* Delivery my ass... It was cold by the time it got here...

Calvinism?
Why yes, it equates to hell!

Have you considered Calvinism?


Nope

I've glanced over the wiki article. It seems horrendously self defeating and flies in the face of the whole "God gave us free will" thing. That said I'm firmly anti-theist. Calvinism does nothing to lighten my view as to the nature of God, though I dislike the Calvinist God slightly more than that of others.

They are sent to hell for rejecting God, which they were commanded not to do.

But which they were pre-destined to do, according to Calvinism. So thus, they are sent to hell because basically, God just feels like it.

Calvinism's God, as well as the God of all Christians, is very benevolent. But benevolent (doing or inclined to good) is not the same as nice or pleasant.

They are sent to hell for rejecting God, which they were commanded not to do.
No, they were commanded to, since they were predestined to do it.

Meaning: god is a sick monster.

Not a justification. He made us, he made the world. He made both things imperfect. That means he doesn't get the right to judge us, because he made us this way. Simple as that.

*grumbles* Delivery my ass... It was cold by the time it got here...

He made the world to be perfect and humanity messed it up: becase of their free will, Adam and Eve chose to do evil and that is all they had to pass down to us. And God can judge us for that, for we are disobeying our command.

If God gave you and your wife (let's assume you're male) some pruners and told you to trim a hedge and to teach your children to trim the hedge because it will be there duty as well, but not to go toward that ginormous hole, He gave you a command. But your wife goes over to the hole and jumps in. She wasn't just looking and slipped, which would still be a sin, she went and jumped into the hole. And she calls to you saying that it's not really that bad, and so you go and jump into the hole as well.

You are not only guilty for jumping into the hole, but you are also guilty for not trimming the hedge. No one else made it impossible for you to trim the hedge, you did and so you are not free from the guilt of that disobedience.

And your children are cursed also, not necessarily because they are unable to trim the hedge, but because you teach them to hate trimming the hedge and to love the hole.

That's a very general overview of Calvinism in a weak parable form.

He made the world to be perfect and humanity messed it up: becase of their free will, Adam and Eve chose to do evil and that is all they had to pass down to us. And God can judge us for that, for we are disobeying our command.

If God gave you and your wife (let's assume you're male) some pruners and told you to trim a hedge and to teach your children to trim the hedge because it will be there duty as well, but not to go toward that ginormous hole, He gave you a command. But your wife goes over to the hole and jumps in. She wasn't just looking and slipped, which would still be a sin, she went and jumped into the hole. And she calls to you saying that it's not really that bad, and so you go and jump into the hole as well.

You are not only guilty for jumping into the hole, but you are also guilty for not trimming the hedge. No one else made it impossible for you to trim the hedge, you did and so you are not free from the guilt of that disobedience.

And your children are cursed also, not necessarily because they are unable to trim the hedge, but because you teach them to hate trimming the hedge and to love the hole.

That's a very general overview of Calvinism in a weak parable form.

Sounds to me like God has some serious issues. He's perfect, he could change everything if he wanted, but he chooses not to, even though he left temptation where he must have known Adam and Eve would receive it, and now he's sitting back and judging us?

If you wanna do parables.

So humanity is a blind man walking down the street with the instruction that "nails could be there" (not that he knows what nails are), and God is the prankster leaving the nail there. When humanity steps on the nail, whose fault is it? God's. Who would be found responsible in any reasonable court? God.

But in the fantasy world of "God Almighty", now the one being blamed is the poor blind man, who had no idea what he was getting into, and got screwed over by the carelessness of God.

God has some responsibility issues, clearly, since he made everything the way it was, and had to know the effects of doing so.

No, they were commanded to, since they were predestined to do it.

Meaning: god is a sick monster.

Everyone is on there way to hell. Already. That's what Total Depravitymeans. Naturally, everybody is going to hell, for their nature generally, for their sins particurally, and because they want nothing to do with God. The depravity (sin) is everywhere (total) infecting every part and aspect of your being. Therefore, you can make no good decision. No one has any virtue.

Therefore, for anyone to be saved God has to change the nature. This is Unconditional Election. Because no one is righteous, they can't do anything to make God look better in God's eyes than another. everyone is stained with sin. Therefore, His choice (election) is not based on the condition of anything we've done, are doing, or are going to do (unconditional). this doesn't mean that the choice is arbitrary, made on whim, eenie-meenie-minie-moe, or without any basis; it means that the choice is not based on us, but something that has not been revealed.

Because the elect are the those who will repent and because no one can or even wants to, only the elect will be saved. This is called Limited Atonement. One must declare Christ as He has revealed himself in the Scriptures as one's personal Lord and Savior and repent both generally and particurally to be saved. No one naturally wants to do this. So those who are changed do choose to repent. Salvation (atonement) will only be given to the elect (it is limited), even though it has been offered to everyone. Everyone else has rejected it.

Free agency (what most people would call free will) is not compromised. This is Irresistable Grace. Those whose nature has been changed will choose to repent, because they are unable to imagine not doing otherwise. They see the gift (grace) as so good, it cannot be turned away (irresistable). Everyone else chooses to reject the gift, which has been offered to them, because they hate everything that has to do with God.

No one whom God has chosen can fall away. This is called Perseverence of the Saints or Preservation of the Saints. Because God continually prompts the saints, or the elect, to do good, they will (because, remember, the grace is irresistable - they cannot imagine refusing it) do good. And He will prompt them so that they may stumble, but not fall totally and utterly so that they cannot return.


The difference between free agency and free will is that free agency is choice. You always have choice. You can choose what you want. We were given free will before the Fall. The will (what you wanted) was free, you could want whatever you want. But at the Fall, free will was lost. The will (what you desire or want) is bound to sin. So the free will became the sinful will. But choice was never lost. The choice is always before you: to do good or to do wrong. But your will always desires to do wrong, unless God changes it.

So why doesn't God change everyone? I don't know. I only know what I believe the Bible teaches. And it does not reveal the basis for God's choice or why He even chooses (actually it does, but only in a very general sense, not particurally, and the general sense would cause many of you to die of heart attacks).

God does not change the reprobate (non-elect) so that they cannot/will not choose: they couldn't/wouldn't choose to begin with. Hyper-calvinists or Double Calvinists believe that God changes the reprobate so he cannot/will not choose, but that is not Biblical, and true Calvinists reject that doctrine.

The first letters of the bolded phrases spell TULIP, the acronym (is that the correct word?) used to refute the teachings of Jacobus Arminius.

Sounds to me like God has some serious issues. He's perfect, he could change everything if he wanted, but he chooses not to, even though he left temptation where he must have known Adam and Eve would receive it, and now he's sitting back and judging us?

If you wanna do parables.

So humanity is a blind man walking down the street with the instruction that "nails could be there" (not that he knows what nails are), and God is the prankster leaving the nail there. When humanity steps on the nail, whose fault is it? God's. Who would be found responsible in any reasonable court? God.

But in the fantasy world of "God Almighty", now the one being blamed is the poor blind man, who had no idea what he was getting into, and got screwed over by the carelessness of God.

God has some responsibility issues, clearly, since he made everything the way it was, and had to know the effects of doing so.

Well that's not the God of Calvinism and you are arguing against my views when you should be arguing against someone else's.

He made the world to be perfect and humanity messed it up: becase of their free will, Adam and Eve chose to do evil and that is all they had to pass down to us. And God can judge us for that, for we are disobeying our command.

Leave a kid in a room with a chocolate cake ...

God is judging us for his own mistakes. God made us specifically imperfect. He gave us freewill, and then a whole lot of temptations, then he allowed a fallen angel to play on those temptations. Then he expects us to not have eaten from the tree, because we're meant to magically ignore the temptations he gave us. It's like saying "If you step on my foot, I'm going to punch you" and then going out of your way to have your foot trodden on.

The idea that, if we were created, we maintain free will is farcical. Somebody still decided what factors we lusted for, somebody still programmed us with curiosity and it wasn't Satan who fiddled with our genetic code.

One in a hundred mussels makes a pearl and one in a hundred pearls is rated near perfect...

Should mussels stop making pearls because a lot of them don't work out quite right? Should God stop making us mussels because so many don't make pearls?

Nah, the deformed and messed up mussels are more likely to make pearls in the first place because sand and dirt are more likely to get in there AND the most messed up people are more likely to be able to recognize the fact that they need God's help and s are more likely to be good pearl makers for God.

God judge's us just fine, what evidence does anyone have that suggests it is otherwise? God picks his own pearl makers.

One in a hundred mussels makes a pearl and one in a hundred pearls is rated near perfect...

Should mussels stop making pearls because a lot of them don't work out quite right? Should God stop making us mussels because so many don't make pearls?

Nah, the deformed and messed up mussels are more likely to make pearls in the first place because sand and dirt are more likely to get in there AND the most messed up people are more likely to be able to recognize the fact that they need God's help and s are more likely to be good pearl makers for God.

God judge's us just fine, what evidence does anyone have that suggests it is otherwise? God picks his own pearl makers.

That's a new one. I'm used to the potter and clay illustration. God chooses to make vessels for both humble and noble use out of the same lump.

Everyone is on there way to hell.
Speak for yourself.


Already. That's what Total Depravitymeans. Naturally, everybody is going to hell, for their nature generally, for their sins particurally, and because they want nothing to do with God.
But god created us and knows everything. And predestined some to be the elect, and some to be the reprobate.

How is that all not god's fault? I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you could explain to me how the fact that god created everything and knows everything gets him off the hook here.

He made the world to be perfect and humanity messed it up: becase of their free will, Adam and Eve chose to do evil
1. They didn't know what evil was until they ate the fruit.

2. How is knowing good from evil....evil? If we want to take the analogy that a lot of xers use as god-as-a-parental-figure, parents teach their children right from wrong. What they DON'T do is hide right from wrong from their children.

But that's PRECISELY what god did. Sounds like a rather bad parent to me.

Speak for yourself.



But god created us and knows everything. And predestined some to be the elect, and some to be the reprobate.

How is that all not god's fault? I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you could explain to me how the fact that god created everything and knows everything gets him off the hook here.

Knowing is not making, neither is making something possible making.

If I do not force you to do something. That is take over your mind and control your actions, I am not responsible for your actions. My actions might excuse some of your actions, but I am not the author of them.

I put a gun to your head and told you to steal some money and you do. You chose to steal the money. Me putting the gun to your head excuses that, but you could have let me shoot you and refused to steal it. Not that God operates by those means, but it's a good way of showing that you are responsible for what you do, no one else is.

And if I opened a bank, I made it possible for someone to rob me. But I do not force the preson to rob me. He chooses to do it himself. But by your logic, I provided the thing to steal, so I'm just as guilty as the one who stole.

And if I opened a bank, I made it possible for someone to rob me. But I do not force the preson to rob me. He chooses to do it himself. But by your logic, I provided the thing to steal, so I'm just as guilty as the one who stole.

It's more along the lines of opening a bank, hiring a convicted money embezzler, giving them the keys and then saying "I'm going on holiday for 5 years, so don't steal anything". What do you expect to happen? It's the line of dominoes.


Of course the other thing you must consider is that for this to better apply to God, you'd have had to go into the mind of the embezzler and have programmed to make them want to take money.

1. They didn't know what evil was until they ate the fruit.

2. How is knowing good from evil....evil? If we want to take the analogy that a lot of xers use as god-as-a-parental-figure, parents teach their children right from wrong. What they DON'T do is hide right from wrong from their children.

But that's PRECISELY what god did. Sounds like a rather bad parent to me.

First, fathers in families are reflections of God the Father, but they are not anywhere near the same thing.

And Adam and Eve didn't need to know what evil was to choose it. What is evil? It is the absence of good. And if God's command is good, to not follow it would be to do evil. And since they made a choice, they chose that evil, even if they did so without thinkingit out. Evil doesn't exist on it's own. It's a word used to describe a lack of good.

And Adam and Eve had no need for a knowledge of evil, so why give it to them? God told them all they needed to know and then some ("You will surely die.") but He didn't reveal everything. Just as He hasn't revealed everything to us, only what we need to know and a little more.

Gotham City State;11609395']It's more along the lines of opening a bank, hiring a convicted money embezzler, giving them the keys and then saying "I'm going on holiday for 5 years, so don't steal anything". What do you expect to happen? It's the line of dominoes.


Of course the other thing you must consider is that for this to better apply to God, you'd have had to go into the mind of the embezzler and have programmed to make them want to take money.

Would you have prefered God make no one? Or that He make robots? For apparently, you don't like that He gave you choice.

Knowing is not making,
But creating is.

I'll let you re-write your post. This time: don't be dishonest. Remember to include the fact that you believe god created everything.

If not--you concede. It's that simple. You have no alternatives.

First, fathers in families are reflections of God the Father, but they are not anywhere near the same thing.
Cop-out.


And Adam and Eve didn't need to know what evil was to choose it.
How could they be held morally accountable when they didn't know what morality was?


What is evil? It is the absence of good.
Nope. Evil is not the absence of good.


And if God's command is good, to not follow it would be to do evil.
But they didn't know that. Gen 3:22 agrees with me. Apparently, you disagree with the bible.

Let's see which one of us would make it to heaven: me, the atheist who knows what the bible states--or you, the one who denies what's in the bible.


And Adam and Eve had no need for a knowledge of evil,
Why not?


so why give it to them?
That's what a perfect being would do. In fact, a perfect being would not have created them without moral knowledge.

Cop-out.

How could they be held morally accountable when they didn't know what morality was?

Nope. Evil is not the absence of good.

But they didn't know that. Gen 3:22 agrees with me. Apparently, you disagree with the bible.

Let's see which one of us would make it to heaven: me, the atheist who knows what the bible states--or you, the one who denies what's in the bible.

Why not?

That's what a perfect being would do. In fact, a perfect being would not have created them without moral knowledge.

No it's not a cop-out. It's that you've heard so many people say "God is our father" when they didn't know what it meant. And so they assumed that it meant God (rather than being the Father figure in a spiritual relationship with God) had the exact same role as a father. The answer is no.

Because they didn't need to know what morality was. Just as they didn't need to know what evil was. All they needed to know was to not even touch the forbidden fruit. They didn't even need to know the consequences, but God told them anyway.

Then, what is evil?

You tell me why Adam and Eve needed knowledge of evil, because apparently I'm missing something.

The whole point of my beleif is that no one makes it to heaven. It's a gift, not something earned or deserved.

A perfect being would do exactly what it is designed to do. God is designed to do and be many things, but no where is His nature (so far as has been revealed in Scripture - it is perilous to speculate further) is it necessary that He tell His creatures everything. And He told them all the morality they needed to know: to not touch the fruit.

Would you have prefered God make no one? Or that He make robots? For apparently, you don't like that He gave you choice.

The idea that we truly have choice is false. It implies that every time we make a decision we look at it from a purely objective viewpoint. This is not so, as our decisions are tempered by our experience and our instincts.

God created the conditions that cause our experiences, and God created our instincts. Our actions are as much based on personal choice as a dominoe chooses which direction it falls in.

Would I prefer if God had made no one or robots? Yes. If that had been the case there's be a hell of a lot less starvation, leprosy, AIDs, opression. You make a broken clock you have no reason to smash it when it tells you the wrong time.

They are sent to hell for rejecting God, which they were commanded not to do.

But according to Calvinism, that's an impossible command. According to Calvinism, Man is not capable of not rejecting God unless God intervenes on their behalf and elects them.

So a few illustrations come to mind.

First of all, he's punishing people then for something he knows they are unable to do. So it's kind of like punching a guy in the face because he can't tell you what color your shirt is, even though you know he's blind.

On the other hand, certain people are getting salvation because God himself made it possible for them to do.

So that would be like making two people face off, but giving one person a gun, and then when he kills the other guy proclaiming him to be the stronger person, completely ignoring the fact that you gave him a major advantage.

I mean seriously, I'm a Christian and all but Calvinism makes me think of everything that's wrong with the way Christianity has been represented.

But according to Calvinism, that's an impossible command. According to Calvinism, Man is not capable of not rejecting God unless God intervenes on their behalf and elects them.

So a few illustrations come to mind.

First of all, he's punishing people then for something he knows they are unable to do. So it's kind of like punching a guy in the face because he can't tell you what color your shirt is, even though you know he's blind.

On the other hand, certain people are getting salvation because God himself made it possible for them to do.

So that would be like making two people face off, but giving one person a gun, and then when he kills the other guy proclaiming him to be the stronger person, completely ignoring the fact that you gave him a major advantage.

I mean seriously, I'm a Christian and all but Calvinism makes me think of everything that's wrong with the way Christianity has been represented.

No, it's like punching a man in the face because he can't tell you the color of his shirt because he gouged his own eyes out.

No. First, no one is saying the elect are better. In fact, some might say they are worse in some respects, because when they sin, they know better (after, of course, they've repented). And the elect is doing nothing to the reprobate. No one is comparing the two in any way beyond that some are saved for no reason based on any value of their own and some are not.

Read Romans 9 without an aid, then read it with an aid one in favor of predestination and one against predestination (predestination as defined by Calvin. All Christians must have some idea of a predestination doctrine, because the word is in the Bible). Then see which aid makes sense based on that chapter. Which one makes the most sense, not which one is the nicest. We don't (or ought not to) care about being nice in doctrine. We should care about being noce to people and animals and nature, but not in our doctrine, because being nice does not determine what's right.

Gotham City State;11609729']The idea that we truly have choice is false. It implies that every time we make a decision we look at it from a purely objective viewpoint. This is not so, as our decisions are tempered by our experience and our instincts.

God created the conditions that cause our experiences, and God created our instincts. Our actions are as much based on personal choice as a dominoe chooses which direction it falls in.

Would I prefer if God had made no one or robots? Yes. If that had been the case there's be a hell of a lot less starvation, leprosy, AIDs, opression. You make a broken clock you have no reason to smash it when it tells you the wrong time.

I'm praying for you. And I don't mean that in a condescending or cruel or hateful way. I mean it sincerely.

No it's not a cop-out.
It quite is.


It's that you've heard so many people say "God is our father" when they didn't know what it meant. And so they assumed that it meant God (rather than being the Father figure in a spiritual relationship with God) had the exact same role as a father. The answer is no.
And you have the monopoly on what it means.


Because they didn't need to know what morality was.
Of course they did.


Just as they didn't need to know what evil was.
Then how could they know that to eat the fruit was wrong?


All they needed to know was to not even touch the forbidden fruit. They didn't even need to know the consequences, but God told them anyway.
They didn't understand.


Then, what is evil?
Evil is a term related to our estimation of the consequences of a volitional action such that the action involves the violation of someone's rights.


You tell me why Adam and Eve needed knowledge of evil, because apparently I'm missing something.
Because humans need that knowledge to exist properly.


The whole point of my beleif is that no one makes it to heaven. It's a gift, not something earned or deserved.
Then you admit that it's based on god's whim. And damnation is god's whim, too.

How does that NOT make god a monster?


A perfect being would do exactly what it is designed to do. God is designed to do and be many things, but no where is His nature (so far as has been revealed in Scripture - it is perilous to speculate further) is it necessary that He tell His creatures everything. And He told them all the morality they needed to know: to not touch the fruit.
They didn't understand. And a perfect being would create perfect beings, by definition, or the perfect being would be imperfect.

Would you have prefered God make no one? Or that He make robots? For apparently, you don't like that He gave you choice.

YES i would prefer that god made no one!

2 personal scenarios, i am "elected" or i am not.

if i am NOT, why would i prefer to be sentenced to an eternity of torment after i die? better to have never been born eh?

if i AM elected i can see no way that my eternal ecstacy offsets the eternal torment of the vast majority of those who have ever lived. i would rather give up my joy to save them the suffering.

better for no one to have been born than for the vast majority to never have had the merest chance at heaven.

im glad im not calvinist.

It quite is.

And you have the monopoly on what it means.

Of course they did.

Then how could they know that to eat the fruit was wrong?

They didn't understand.

Evil is a term related to our estimation of the consequences of a volitional action such that the action involves the violation of someone's rights.

Because humans need that knowledge to exist properly.

Then you admit that it's based on god's whim. And damnation is god's whim, too.

How does that NOT make god a monster?

They didn't understand. And a perfect being would create perfect beings, by definition, or the perfect being would be imperfect.

I've never heard evil defined that way, but even by that definition, I still don't believe that they would need to understand evil, especially not to exist properly.

And I never said it was based on God's whim. Whim implies there is no purpose. Just because we can't see the purpose doesn't mean it's not there.

And how could they not understand? How can't anyone understand "DO NOT..."? Unless you have a mental handicap of some sort, there is no excuse for not understanding. And as you say a perfect Being must create perfect creatures, so there would be no handicaps. The command wasn't even complicated. There was no "Don't do this, unless this happens, in which case you should do a before b, unless c has occurred..." And it was a command, not commands. The weren' too many to remember. So the could not possibly not understand by way of logic, even if the Genesis did not tell us that they did remember.

And I do not have a monopoly as to what Scripture means. But while there can be many applications of Scripture, there can only be one interpretation, and the interpretation I am refuting creates more problems than it solves and disagrees with many other Bible verses.

Sorry that this response is kinda jumbled.

according to jesus god IS the perfect father.

7
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
8
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9
Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread,
10
or a snake when he asks for a fish?
11
If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.

YES i would prefer that god made no one!

2 personal scenarios, i am "elected" or i am not.

if i am NOT, why would i prefer to be sentenced to an eternity of torment after i die? better to have never been born eh?

if i AM elected i can see no way that my eternal ecstacy offsets the eternal torment of the vast majority of those who have ever lived. i would rather give up my joy to save them the suffering.

better for no one to have been born than for the vast majority to never have had the merest chance at heaven.

im glad im not calvinist.

Who said the majority would perish? I see no evidence of that in Scripture. Certainly there were times and will be times when at a single point in time the reprobate outnumber the elect, but if you add everyone together, I don't know that the majority would not be elect. That is speculating further than the Bible reveals.