god the schizzo

How you or I interpret predeterminism is a moot point. I'm talking about how the Calvinists themselves interpret it, and I gave a pretty accurate assesment.
Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Their whole theology was based on the idea that personal salvation was something an individual had no choice about or power over. according to them certain people were "chosen" by God before birth and salvation is completely out of human hands; again (according to them) you were either born saved, in which case you remained saved no matter what you did, or you weren't, in which case you were damned no matter what you did.

The real problem with this is it made it easy for the Calavinists to turn self righteousness into a holy cause;
"We're the elect, our lives are worth something. Everyone else is damned, their lives are worthless."
"We're the elect. We should be allowed to dictate public pollicy even though we're in the minority"

Not saying these are actual quotes, just a summation of the attitude (If you read up on their history you'll see what I'm talking about).

And while I'm not saying fundamentalists have adopted the doctrine of Calvinism whole cloth, they have inheirited a fair amount of the attitudde (read up on our history, tell me I'm wrong).

It has alot to do with why a "christian" nation felt (feels) within it's rights indulging in genocide, slavery, and imperialism.

 

No, you did not. You still are not.
Lets see if you can try again....

Totally wrong. Trust me, you do not understand a single thing here.
You are actually going the entirely opposite way even though you dont even know it.

Now all you are doing is being wrong in a more elaborate way. Totally way off. Have no idea how you can blow this, this bad.

At the very very best you could accidently be refering to what some laymen or renegade Calvinists misunderstood (like you are) and in that case they are not actually following Calvins predestination anyways.

Again, the closest you could come here is only if you were describing people who were NOT able to understand Calvins Predestination.
I swear, Im not 'flaming you' when I promise you that you are way off on this.

I know a thing or two about their history and I should tell you that Calvin and 'Calvinists' are not exactly the first or even 70th group or denom or people to talk about this.

Again, its definately possible that this and every other idea has been 'perverted' or twisted around by some followers.

Ok, You are wrong.

I have to tell you something.
The issue is not nearly as complicated as even Christians have made out of it anyways. Even still, I can tell you that in 'one way or another' everyone agrees with the concept in a certain way or principle.
That is to say all Christians believe God is Omniscient.
All Knowing.
Ok... if you want Im going to say 'Psychic' then.

This implies that God can look into the future ok?
So, do you understand that just because God, in his infinite wisdom 'can know' who is in the outcome...
(and please, please watch this next part...)
This does not mean that ANYTHING changes for us.
Free Will is STILL in effect no matter what.
Everything still matters.
Nothing changes.
This is what people mean by this idea of Predestination ok?

Im not sure what nation you think you are talking about but there is definately a problem with someone who is under the warped impression that they just because God can ultimately see into the future - they can then do anything they want including abolishing slavery or ending dictatorships or taking over Mexico.

People can unfortunately warp and twist anything they want when it comes to their nastiest desires and there is nothing sacred on that.
Its too bad these people you are talking about didn't STICK WITH CALVINISM because if they DID then they would not have been so keen on this Satanic regime you spoke of.

 

Erasmus, will you please provide the proper explanation for Calvin's ideas and teachings regarding Predestination, with references.

I, for one, would like to be correctly informed when discussing this subject and really don't know where to find the right info, nor how to distinguish it from the wrong.

 

So, God makes a fire to warm you and says 'don't touch the wood stove, it will burn you.' Eventually you will understand what God means by "Don't touch that."

 

Kharakov, fine for while we're alive, but if Hell is eternal, then what good is any lesson you learn? It's basically a big "I told you so" from God, if you never get a chance to implement your painfully acheived new wisdom.

 

Trust you? and why exactly should I do that?
Hmmm...let me see, who am I going to listen to; the history books, backed by wikepedia vs some guy who's only rebutal is to say "you're wrong" without offerring any alternative perspective or any links to the contrary...

Well then enlighten me.
If I--and the history books, and wikepedia--are wrong, here's your chance to straighten us out.

Which one? a layman or a renegade Calvinist? and what are you btw?

And yet you offer no counter argument or information to the contrary. Merely "You're wrong".

But we are talking about calvinists here. The topic is not determinism, the topic is how calvinists interpreted determinism, and how our present society has inherited certain attitudes based on their interpretation.

Again, you say that I (and obviously wikepedia) have the history and theology of Calvinism wrong, but you're not offering any alternative information.

You say you "know a thing or two" about Calvin and calvinism,
For instance?

So you're saying that modern american christian fundalmentalism isn't rooted in calvinism?

you might want to get the word out on that because there are a lot of people laboring under the idea that it is,
ie;
historians,
history proffesors,
most fundementalists themselves...

Which, while it's all very interesting, is not what we were talking about.

Really? the white puritan settlers and their decendants didn't exterminate 80% of the native american population? Gee, guess all those people died of natural causes then.

Christans introduced slavery to this country (we were talking about american fundementalism, remember?) . It was ended by the predominantly humanitarin north, in opposition to the predominantly christian south.
Now you're going to somehow give fundementalists credit for ending slavery?

And "taking over mexico"? what are you talking about?

 

You are not understanding what it is you think you are quoting and reading about Calvins predestination.
There is another thread in case you want to get into the details.
Its just that you do not understand what you are reading.

Again, Wikipedia might be correctly giving you examples of what people have gone ahead and done wrong, extrapolate on etc.
That doesnt mean this is the right idea.

Unfortunately you dont know what your reading so far. You drawing your own conclusions and making assertions based on misunderstandings etc.

BTW.. The 'North' was guided by Judeo-Christian principles and ultimately won out over the pro-slavery folks.
'Christendom' for you information has about zero interest in slavery and did a pretty good job interfering with it as well.

Taking over part of Mexico is my guess at what you meant by 'Imperialism' but considering you seem to think Predestination means people are 'born saved no matter what' and that Secular Humanists ended Christian Slavery then there is no possible way you can shake the bullshit loose long enough to know that a large part of Mexico was basically 'Annexed' by the USA.
I suppose you figure Christians did that too?

 

Be honest here; you didn't even bother to read the link, did you?

Pyschologists would call what you're doing here "projection" (look it up).

You mean like the southern baptist ministers who tryed to use the story of noah and the epistles to prove that slavery was God's will?

The north was primaraly humanistic, ie, the intellectual/political atmosphere was dominated by humanism.
Yes, Judeo-christian principles had an influence on and were reflected to some extent in humanism. Too bad the same can't be said for fundamentalism.

Whens the last time you read a newspaper?

Dude, you're hysterical. This last paragraph didn't even sort of make sense.
You've lost the argument so now you're going to try to save face by being a sarcastic asshole.
Knock yourself out. I'm putting you in my "amusing but stupid" file.

 

Naykidape.. The problem is that I know that you are posting in a way that is all 'argument' and your using words and language thats just trying to be what you sorta think a 'Rebuke' should sound like.
Now, You know that I know that you know.

You really do not 'get' what the Calvinist version of predestination (say 'Election' if you like) and you have decided to keep 'fighting' on it as if that will win the day.
No.
Look, Id be the first to tell you that one of the problems here is the way its usually communicated and this is partly why even the Presbys have actually made it a part of their statement of faith, going out of there way to explain that even their own people have trouble with it.

One of the problems with a Wikipedia article on this is demonstrated by people like yourself 'reading the words' but not so much know 'why' you are looking at these words.
Believe me, this gets as wierd as reading a Luthern statement on transubstanciation and if you dont know whats happening it wont really mean anything if I say to you (or add to Wikipedia myself) "Spiritually, In, Of and Through"
You might read that, then come and say you 'know' Lutherans believe such and such but since you are not really familiar with how that came to be, why its written that way and whats going on - then you will screw it up like you did predestination.

People will argue that while 'everyone believes in Predestination' in the sense that God would be able to 'preview' the 'destinations' - its then suggested by some, that Calvinists invoke some sort of 'Double Predestination.'
Its sort of derogatory in itself but you took it even further so as to try and accuse them of murder and slavery for it.
The real truth is that if you really sat down with this with their theologians and get past all these 'possible implications' and these 'extrapolations' - they really do come up with the same explanation I gave you earlier:
God can see the end result and knows who will choose and what they will choose..
And, also, at the same time, in addition to...
He does not interfere with their ability to choose.
In other words, the Calvinist is STILL in the same place, at the end of the day and everyone ultimately agrees that no 'explanation' will suffice as to how this works but that it changes nothing for us.

Since you like to read the Wikipedia breakdowns on the whole thing then here is what Im talking about:
You probably read this opinion from a Wiki contributor and this is what you 'ran with' and started making up conclusions on btw:

"Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy."

.. and, God continually acts with entire freedom, in order to bring about his will in completeness, in an unfathomable way, not accessible to scrutiny, so that the freedom of the creature is not violated.

And another opinion from a Wikipedia contributor(s) really takes it home with:
So that Calvinists will often attribute salvation entirely to God; and yet they will also assert that it is man's responsibility to pursue obedience.

I have a feeling that you might be able to read those words but you need to understand whats happening here.

Ultimately, you get the same darn thing as the Lutherans and pretty much everyone else:
God can look into the future to know who will make the free-will decisions and responses that will lead them to the end.
The Human does not know that.
Even if God could not flip ahead to the final page and read the ending.
Still Free Will choices.

The simplest way I can think of to explain why 'Your evil Calvinists' would be wrong is this:
God can look into the future but they know they cannot!
So your Calvinists who are doing crimes, attacking people or causing slavery can not being doing this because they believe they are predestined.
They would not know they were predestined!

I said before that you can see where a misguided Calvinist with some wrong intentions might be doing this (confused renegade or confused laymen same problem btw).
He is doing that 'in spite' of what Calvin would teach him.

But

Thats not what you meant.
You did not think this was improper Calvinism did you?
You insisted that it was properly followed Calvinism and its not.

Look, I dont even have a big problem if anyone thinks there is something missing or not mentioned in my little synopsis of Calvins Predestination but I know that YOUR version is based on a total misunderstanding that is for sure.

 

Erasmus, I hope you're not a teacher, for the children's sake. Your explanation isn't doing it for me. Partly because there is a logical contradiction in the future being knowable for fact coinciding with the free will of people. If God knows the future, then the future is in essence set, our choices aren't choices, they're just part of the plan. Unless you say God knows every possible scenario that could ever result from every choice possible, but then, God doesn't know the future, he know's it's possibilities. If he already knows what a person's choices will all be, what kind of choice is it? Where is the freedom?

 

In regard to predestination, premises of a major branch of Hindu spiritual thought:

God and all individual souls are eternally existing...they were never created and will never go out of existence.

God is the supreme being, and individual souls are subordinate beings, each with free will.

God, being all powerful and omniscient, knows every individual and has known them for eternity, but, by being a separately-existing entity with completely free will, an individual has the capacity to surprise God.

 

I see. so basically you're saying...
I'm wrong,
...History is wrong
...every author of every book that the contributers on wikepedia quoted is wrong.
...every other site on the net that deals with the history of Calvinism is wrong
...Reason, logic, common sense, and reality (for that matter) are wrong (and tools of the devil)
..anyone who tells you anything that you don't like the sound of is wrong (and evil)

..and you're right.

thanks for clearing that up.

 

Just one more thing...
You are also wrong about everything in your last post.
Except for the last point... I am right.
Otherwise I think you have finally got it.

:O

 

Wow. If a mere human would have made that statement, I would say he was contradicting himself.