Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2011, 09:25 AM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
I've been reading Dan Barker's autobiography, Godless. In it he describes some of the formal debates he has had since going from being an evangelist of the gospel to an outspoken atheist. Anyway, the tie in to this thread was a story he told of a debate held with a Calvinist.
His words: "I told the horrible story of how John Calvin had co-reformer Michael Servetus burned at the stake for the "crime" of questioning his scriptural interpretations. Not only did Wilson {the debate opponent} not join me in denouncing Calvin, he came to his defense! Well, how could he not, being a Calvinist pastor? 'Anyone who holds John Calvin in high regard,' I told that audience, 'is morally bankrupt.'"

The former Reverend Erxomai would hear God's voice in the serendipity of recurring themes. Since Calvinism has come up in two different ways in the past two days, I can only conclude that God is telling me that Calvinsim is morally bankrupt. There's my evidence.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 08:49 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2011 09:13 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Ok, going to try to respond to everything. Let me know if I missed anything.

Erxomai is correct in his evaluation to my response about evidence. My evidence is anecdotal and personal; meaning, the evidence is what happened to me and how I changed.

As he implied, it's not fair that I should have to explain and present evidence of something to someone who doesn't believe. Just like it's not fair for me to ask you to prove and present concrete evidence that God doesn't exist. No one can do either, so it's a little ridiculous to ask me to do it.

And, as an aside, Erxomai... predestination as been around a lot longer than Calvin.

@Chas:

First, you remind me a lot of myself. A lot, actually... well, me 6-7 years ago. Your arguments and comments are typical of any non-theist when conversing with a theist. I used the same metatrolling tactics that you use way back when I was on a crusade to rid the world of Christianity. You ask unanswerable questions and try to evoke an emotion response while incorrectly putting the burden of proof on the theist. You create logical fallacies with your arguments to lead and trap a response (red herring and then to poisoning the well). This isn't new, and people (including me) have been doing this for years. My response to your obvious tactic was the only way to handle it. Just call a mulligan, and accept the fact that you weren't going to understand or accept my evidence or my views.

This obviously didn't satisfy you (even though others could obviously see what I was doing), so you try your next trolling tactic, and that was to give me a negative rating and claim I was not rational. Fine, whatever, I was prepared to just put you on ignore, but then I decided not to. I realized I came to an atheist forum by choice, and I have to be prepared to deal with close-minded, irrational people (so far, only one) and calmly reiterate my point of view; no matter how many times or how much exhausting detail I put into it.

Oh, and as I stated earlier, you need to learn the difference between getting "offended" and getting "annoyed".

Now, that's that out of the way, my next post will address the topic at hand.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 08:59 AM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(05-12-2011 08:49 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  And, as an aside, Erxomai... predestination as been around a lot longer than Calvin.

...which leads to Manifest Destiny and a Hell no! from this unit.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2011 09:30 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
Evidence for me being elect:

Growing up, I was always embarrassed of Christianity and whenever my parents talked about Jesus. I thought church was silly, and I found the stories nothing more than fantasy.

I finally accepted agnosticism in college as my official belief, and I began to rip Christianity apart with the use of logic and rationality. I would combat Christians on the Internet via forums and use the aforementioned tactics against them to make them look like fools. I was good at it.

Driving home from work one day, my life changed. My heart was opened to a higher power; even though I didn't know whom. I'll try my best to explain this: I found myself suddenly and sincerely praying and listening to this higher power for guidance. This was wholly strange to me because up until that moment I didn't believe in a God that I could talk to.

My beliefs so drastically changed than I began to get angry with myself. I didn't understand how I could rationally accept that there was a higher power that I could converse with. It wasn't logical. Also, I never wanted to talk to a higher power, and I didn't understand how I was doing it if I didn't choose to. My knowledge of religion pre-empted the idea that I had to choose it.

The higher power led me to read and study the Bible. This was the first time that I’ve ever actually done it. It was at this time that I realized that the higher power I was talking to was the Christian God; however, I still didn’t understand why I didn’t get a choice. As my studying intensified, I began to learn about election. And then, it made sense. I realized that then reason I didn’t have a choice is because I was never planned to have a choice.

I knew that I was elect because I learned that those who are elect can hear the will of God and those that aren’t cannot even understand it.

So, that’s my evidence. I guess the most concrete part of it is the fact that my beliefs radically changed and became cemented by no choice of my own.

In my next post, I will address the other comments.
Quote:I have some suspicion that you may be a Satanist of sorts purporting to be a really weird Christian.

God as depicted by you comes across as some sort of evil megalomaniac, intent for some obscure reason ,in glorifying his son; to Hell with the majority of other living creatures. You pluck pieces from the O.T. and N.T. simply to justify your strange position while conveniently ignoring scripture that arguably rejects your Calvinistic views. This eclectic approach, while very common within the feuding factions of Christendom, serves no useful purpose.

My acceptance is that God is all powerful, and His will and intentions are His own. They are not to be questioned. Since I relinquish that fact, I also have to accept that if God is all powerful then he is also all knowing; thus, removing any and all free will. Free will cannot exist with this concept of God.

Also, I do not pick and choose evidence from the Bible. Predestination is very much a Biblical principle. Now, the burden of proof is on you to show me other scripture that rejects predestination.

Quote:As for suffering in humanity and animals of the non elect, this is simply god's capricious whim in order to glorify the son, and you to a lesser degree because like Paul you had an epiphany of sorts. There is no compassion whatsoever in a God you seemingly turn into Satan.

I explained sovereignty to Paul in one of our previous discussions. God has compassion on whom He wants, and he condemns who he wants (Romans 9).

Quote:If I was a christian person I would see your brand of theology as very black, insanely self promoting, and an affront to all religious people who endeavour to find some truth and sane value in the limited parts of scripture that may be seen as justifying such.

Very limited parts of your writings show signs of an enquiring mind.
Unfortunately blatant equivocations and lack of consistent rational interconnections
detract from my former contention.

No, I completely understand this. However, other types of Christians choose to completely ignore the fact that the only way for God to be all powerful is to remove our free will. They ignore the fact that the Bible clearly states that God chooses and has favorites. My scripture evidence isn’t limited, and it is thoroughly taught throughout the entire Bible. Other Christians ignore it, because they don’t like the idea of not having free will or the idea that there is a God that damns people to hell through no choice of their own.

Quote:If my Satanist notions are ill concieved, I apologize in advance.

It’s all good.

Quote:However, we're allowed to attack it. It's just a belief system. And evidence... I'm having trouble accepting that there's evidence that won't work in a TTA court... at least let us see it? 'Cos even if we can't accept it, saying "I got it but I'm not gonna show it to you 'cos you'll laugh/won't accept it/ whatever"... well, imagine if science was done that way? "I'm not gonna show you my evidence that matter is made of atoms because you'll laugh at me"??? Refusing to show your evidence - *That's* what gets laughed at - that would be an unknown and unremembered, and unlamented crank, if this was science we were doing.

Fair enough. Put that post was mainly for Chas because he wasn’t going to accept my anecdotes as evidence; no matter how true they are in my life.

Quote:PS: KC, don't think anyone's trying to convert you... and of course you're free to believe whatever you like... Just... um... if you're gonna stand up and say "Calvin's right and I like him"... be prepared to take a bit of flak?

The thing is I have explained it. I didn’t just stand up and say “hai guyz I leik calvin. Lol kbye.” It’s the explanation of my beliefs that they don’t agree with and don’t accept.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
05-12-2011, 12:58 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(05-12-2011 08:49 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Chas:

First, you remind me a lot of myself. A lot, actually... well, me 6-7 years ago. Your arguments and comments are typical of any non-theist when conversing with a theist. I used the same metatrolling tactics that you use way back when I was on a crusade to rid the world of Christianity. You ask unanswerable questions and try to evoke an emotion response while incorrectly putting the burden of proof on the theist. You create logical fallacies with your arguments to lead and trap a response (red herring and then to poisoning the well). This isn't new, and people (including me) have been doing this for years. My response to your obvious tactic was the only way to handle it. Just call a mulligan, and accept the fact that you weren't going to understand or accept my evidence or my views.

This obviously didn't satisfy you (even though others could obviously see what I was doing), so you try your next trolling tactic, and that was to give me a negative rating and claim I was not rational. Fine, whatever, I was prepared to just put you on ignore, but then I decided not to. I realized I came to an atheist forum by choice, and I have to be prepared to deal with close-minded, irrational people (so far, only one) and calmly reiterate my point of view; no matter how many times or how much exhausting detail I put into it.

Oh, and as I stated earlier, you need to learn the difference between getting "offended" and getting "annoyed".

Now, that's that out of the way, my next post will address the topic at hand.

You read a lot into a rather few comments and questions I have made. I had no master debate plan, merely responded to your assertions and asked questions.

I have only asked for evidence for your belief. Your internal experience is not objective evidence. That's really all I have said.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 01:06 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(05-12-2011 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 08:49 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Chas:

First, you remind me a lot of myself. A lot, actually... well, me 6-7 years ago. Your arguments and comments are typical of any non-theist when conversing with a theist. I used the same metatrolling tactics that you use way back when I was on a crusade to rid the world of Christianity. You ask unanswerable questions and try to evoke an emotion response while incorrectly putting the burden of proof on the theist. You create logical fallacies with your arguments to lead and trap a response (red herring and then to poisoning the well). This isn't new, and people (including me) have been doing this for years. My response to your obvious tactic was the only way to handle it. Just call a mulligan, and accept the fact that you weren't going to understand or accept my evidence or my views.

This obviously didn't satisfy you (even though others could obviously see what I was doing), so you try your next trolling tactic, and that was to give me a negative rating and claim I was not rational. Fine, whatever, I was prepared to just put you on ignore, but then I decided not to. I realized I came to an atheist forum by choice, and I have to be prepared to deal with close-minded, irrational people (so far, only one) and calmly reiterate my point of view; no matter how many times or how much exhausting detail I put into it.

Oh, and as I stated earlier, you need to learn the difference between getting "offended" and getting "annoyed".

Now, that's that out of the way, my next post will address the topic at hand.

You read a lot into a rather few comments and questions I have made. I had no master debate plan, merely responded to your assertions and asked questions.

I have only asked for evidence for your belief. Your internal experience is not objective evidence. That's really all I have said.

...and, didn't I say this VERY thing? Yet, you acted as if I refused to engage myself in "rational" discussion. Your above response proves that I read correctly into your motives.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 01:39 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
I don't want in because this thread has gone so far off the rails it's a crazy train. But if this thread had actually been about kings belief in god, then the burden of proof would rely on him. Here the conversation became derailed. So he owes nothing.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
05-12-2011, 02:06 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
I like you KC Smile You're a leeetle tiny bit crazy but so is everyone. And it does take balls to stand up and get mud thrown at you. Just to be clear though, I'm still with Chas on the evidence stuff and whatnot - subjective != objective, but as has been rather vigorously pointed out, it's not you who's being asked to defend your beliefs... the thread is about Calvinism.

Wold anyone mind running past me the basic premises of Calvinism. I did read the thread but I don't want to do it again and I don't recall any clear summary. So far I know it involves predestination, and I'm not clear on why this is bad. Lemme see...

God = good. God = omniscient. God knows what's gonna happen. Therefore God knows who's gonna make what stupid choices and go to hell. God still chooses not to save said losers but rather only chooses a select few who get caviar and cigarettes while they enjoy eternity watching everyone else gettin' toasted.

I must say this is starting to look like reductio as absurdum proof that God != good? Which therefore would either imply that God != good or that there is a problem with one of our other assumptions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
05-12-2011, 02:29 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(05-12-2011 02:06 PM)morondog Wrote:  I like you KC Smile You're a leeetle tiny bit crazy but so is everyone. And it does take balls to stand up and get mud thrown at you. Just to be clear though, I'm still with Chas on the evidence stuff and whatnot - subjective != objective, but as has been rather vigorously pointed out, it's not you who's being asked to defend your beliefs... the thread is about Calvinism.

lol thanks... I think Tongue

But yeah, I'm aware the subjective evidence doesn't equal objective evidence and I pointed this out extensively. This is why I said my evidence wouldn't hold up in the TTA Courthouse.

Quote:Wold anyone mind running past me the basic premises of Calvinism. I did read the thread but I don't want to do it again and I don't recall any clear summary. So far I know it involves predestination, and I'm not clear on why this is bad. Lemme see...

Sure.

Quote:God = good. God = omniscient. God knows what's gonna happen. Therefore God knows who's gonna make what stupid choices and go to hell.

This is called conditional free will... or middle knowledge. Some people who claim predestination abide by this, but it is a flawed belief. If you claim God is omniscience, then this belief cannot be. At it's core, it's still God basing his decision on a human factor. It's just convoluted, so it doesn't seem that way. God does not base His choice of salvation on anything that a human can do.

Quote:God still chooses not to save said losers but rather only chooses a select few who get caviar and cigarettes while they enjoy eternity watching everyone else gettin' toasted.

Your premise is correct.

Quote:I must say this is starting to look like reductio as absurdum proof that God != good? Which therefore would either imply that God != good or that there is a problem with one of our other assumptions?

Yes. It's the belief that's God will is absolute, and that whatever He chooses cannot be questioned.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 02:41 PM
RE: Calvin's Bizarre Doctrine.
(05-12-2011 02:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 02:06 PM)morondog Wrote:  I like you KC Smile You're a leeetle tiny bit crazy but so is everyone. And it does take balls to stand up and get mud thrown at you. Just to be clear though, I'm still with Chas on the evidence stuff and whatnot - subjective != objective, but as has been rather vigorously pointed out, it's not you who's being asked to defend your beliefs... the thread is about Calvinism.

lol thanks... I think Tongue

But yeah, I'm aware the subjective evidence doesn't equal objective evidence and I pointed this out extensively. This is why I said my evidence wouldn't hold up in the TTA Courthouse.

Quote:Wold anyone mind running past me the basic premises of Calvinism. I did read the thread but I don't want to do it again and I don't recall any clear summary. So far I know it involves predestination, and I'm not clear on why this is bad. Lemme see...

Sure.

Quote:God = good. God = omniscient. God knows what's gonna happen. Therefore God knows who's gonna make what stupid choices and go to hell.

This is called conditional free will... or middle knowledge. Some people who claim predestination abide by this, but it is a flawed belief. If you claim God is omniscience, then this belief cannot be. At it's core, it's still God basing his decision on a human factor. It's just convoluted, so it doesn't seem that way. God does not base His choice of salvation on anything that a human can do.

Quote:God still chooses not to save said losers but rather only chooses a select few who get caviar and cigarettes while they enjoy eternity watching everyone else gettin' toasted.

Your premise is correct.

Quote:I must say this is starting to look like reductio as absurdum proof that God != good? Which therefore would either imply that God != good or that there is a problem with one of our other assumptions?

Yes. It's the belief that's God will is absolute, and that whatever He chooses cannot be questioned.
As a non~ elect thank goodness I'll never get to meet you personally!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: