• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Calvin Murder

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here is one for the Reformers/Calvinists on here, who support the actions of John Calvin, and still try to justify his approval of cold-blooded murder. Did the God of the Bible actually "decree" this act of murder? There are some who argue that God had decreed from eternity past, ALL things that come to pass, even the evil deeds of this world! They are deluded into believing that God somehow also "caused" Judas to betray Jesus Christ, based on a complete misunderstanding of Scripture, especially Acts 4:27-28.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟108,837.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe your summary assumes too heavily that theology does not have any control, especially in modern republic and democratic governmental systems where voting is the norm. All Law big and small relies upon the good conscience of an individual to follow it. The American founding fathers understood this idea deeply, insisting that nothing matter how secure a secular government felt, ultimately it was being allowed to rule by the consent of the governed. Research into Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union will yield similar conclusions. These murderous states did not exist without a large amount of public support, in-fact, in the Soviet Union, 1 in 3 people would at one time or another report their friends and family to the communist authorities. Similarly too, there were plenty of instances of people willingly suffering in Gulags and dying in Concentration Camps due to the fervor of their zealot like support for these regimes.

Religion in its many myriad of forms and doctrines sits at one of the deepest foundational levels of human society. Acting as a belief system through which people interpret the world around them. No man secular or otherwise could have any freewill if he/she did not also have a belief system through which to filter stimulus and information. Foundational Belief is fundamental to decision making, and therefore, ruling over countries or not, Religion sits right at the beating heart of a government: it's people.

Of course it does. But organized religion exerting direct political power, through control of courts of judgment, control of family law, and the assertion of religious law (anti-blasphemy statutes, or mandatory church attendance, or church membership as a voting requirement, etc.) was the norm, and resulted in such a morally unsatisfying result that people harnessed government to systematically dismantle the enforcement authority of the church in their lives, to remove the hand of the priest and minister from the scepter of government and reduce them to the roles of counselors that one has the option of consulting. The payment of official churches through public taxes has also largely ended in the civilized world, forcing churches to actually appeal to people to voluntarily support them or wither up and die.

This development is the RESULT OF the abuse of people by organized religion, when it had power.

Of course, the fans of organized religion - the people who will actually DEFEND the likes of Calvin or Luther or Pope Leo and the murderous behavior of all of the official Christian Churches of the Reformation period - will decry the secularization of society by the demotion of religion to a private matter without public authority. The problem they have is history. The Church lost that power because it killed people.

Looking at society today, I would say that the secular state has become overmighty and over-intrusive. In America, the abusive nature of police power has gained attention - and resentment - as never before. Eastern Europeans in particular have already been through the worst of that, with the Soviet Union and the occupation of the Warsaw Pact countries. The result of the abuse of police power in the East has been that all of the formerly Catholic states of Eastern Europe, upon the departure of the troops of the USSR, substantially weakened the power of their governments and reduced the footprint of their police forces.

But those struggles within secularism - of how far people will tolerate secular government bullying them with thought police the way the Christian Church did centuries ago - is a page still being written.
If we may draw a lesson from history, it is that self-righteous prigs with power, be they Christian theologians or secular political philosophers, do not relinquish power without shedding rivers of blood, that they do so unrepentantly and believe themselves justified in doing so, and that in every generation there are always ill-formed, petty fanatics who will sign up with the Taliban, or the witch hunters, or the slave-hunter posses, or the segregationists, or the "error has no rights" crowd, or the fascists or the communist or "social warriors", and inflict great harm on some lives. In the process, they create religious and secular martyrs who ultimately inspire more people to shuck off the current Taliban.

People want some religion, some law and order, and they want to be left alone. Most people manage to balance the interests, and over time, the drift of societies of markedly different culture and religion is towards system where average people are not very much interfered with as they go about their lives. But the wannabee thought police, the Taliban, do gain control in places from time to time - Afghanistan, Riyadh, North Korea, Russia, Berlin, Salem, Geneva, the Vatican... - and when they do, they give humanity a foretaste of hell.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
BUT, Calvin still voted for his murder. Yes or no?

No, that is completely false. Calvin had no vote at all.

In fact, he asked for a mild form of clemency, and that was refused.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
STOP excusing this unlawful murder.

It wasn't a murder. It was a legitimate, democratic government executing someone.

I would not like the death penalty or heresy to return. We can definitely do without it. But the good citizens of Geneva felt differently. The judges relied on the Justinian Code for their legal precedent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Calvin prosecuted the case. He made the arguments to the court that resulted in Servetus' conviction.

Well, no. The prosecuting attorney prosecuted the case. Calvin was an expert witness for the prosecution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mdamon0501
Upvote 0

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, that is completely false. Calvin had no vote at all.

He asked for a mild form of clemency, and that was refused.

"Calvin played a prominent part in the trial and pressed for execution, although by beheading rather than by fire", Michael Servetus | Spanish theologian

STOP kidding yourselves. Calvin supported MURDER. There is NO way around this.
 
Upvote 0

mdamon0501

Active Member
Apr 24, 2018
93
51
Massachusetts
✟29,456.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well, no. The prosecuting attorney prosecuted the case. Calvin was an expert witness for the prosecution.

This is the problem summarized exactly. Too often do we try to apply 21st century morality, as seen in the common place, to morality of centuries past and try to put blame on individuals from our modern moral position. Has nobody read the confessions of St. Augustine? He himself points out this exact same problem.
 
Upvote 0

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It wasn't a murder. It was a legitimate, democratic government executing someone.

I would not like the death penalty or heresy to return. We can definitely do without it. But the good citizens of Geneva felt differently.

to kill someone who disagreed with you on doctrine, is ok in your eyes? Would you say it was right with the Lord, if we asked our governments to execute Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc, who also deny the Holy Trinity? Why not?
 
Upvote 0

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It wasn't a murder. It was a legitimate, democratic government executing someone.

I would not like the death penalty or heresy to return. We can definitely do without it. But the good citizens of Geneva felt differently.

"It was a legitimate, democratic government executing someone"., on the grounds that they denied the Holy Trinity?
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Calvin played a prominent part in the trial and pressed for execution, although by beheading rather than by fire", Michael Servetus | Spanish theologian

I'm sorry, that's your attempt at serious research? And big, bold, red letters don't make it any more serious, trust me. There are books about this. You could read them. Here is one to start with.

STOP kidding yourselves. Calvin supported MURDER. There is NO way around this.

It wasn't murder. It was a legitimate, democratic government imposing a law that went back to Justinian.
 
Upvote 0

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It wasn't murder. It was a legitimate, democratic government imposing a law that went back to Justinian.

yeah, I am sure the Lord agree with your understanding. keep kidding yourself, rather than admit its was what it was, ILLEGAL MURDER.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟108,837.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, no. The prosecuting attorney prosecuted the case. Calvin was an expert witness for the prosecution.

An eager one. He wanted Severtus dead. He succeeded. Calvin was Christian Taliban. I doubt he is enjoying himself today. But who knows.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟108,837.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
yeah, I am sure the Lord agree with your understanding. keep kidding yourself, rather than admit its was what it was, ILLEGAL MURDER.

No, it was LEGAL murder. That's the problem with fanatics in government. What Hitler did was legal in Germany.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
yeah, I am sure the Lord agree with your understanding. keep kidding yourself, rather than admit its was what it was, ILLEGAL MURDER.

I'm sorry. "Illegal" means "against the law."

The Genevan government (who, in fact, at this point in history were Calvin's opponents) applied a law that went back to Justinian. How is that "illegal"? Which law did they break?

Now, ers
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟108,837.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It wasn't murder. It was a legitimate, democratic government imposing a law that went back to Justinian.

It was legitimate, democratic government granting itself the power to defy the law of God and kill people. Just like the Canaanites. Just like us. Nobody gets away with it in the end. It's always inexcusable no matter who does it.

God allowed men to shed other men's blood in response to a man shedding blood first, and in self-defense. He did not carve out a "government exception", and there is none. The guy who decides he's going to earn his living as the state executioner better hope that the state gets the judgments right, and that the men he executes really are murderers. "I was just following orders" didn't even work before other men at Nuremberg, and it probably isn't going to work before the judgment seat of a God who was tortured to death at the hands of agents of a state and a theocracy either.

Play with fire, get all burnt up.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It was legitimate, democratic government granting itself the power to defy the law of God and kill people.

If you refer to then 10 Commandments, they forbid murder. They don't forbid the death penalty.
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,915
9,069
Midwest
✟979,176.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
yeah, I am sure the Lord agree with your understanding. keep kidding yourself, rather than admit its was what it was, ILLEGAL MURDER.

I believe that his point is that is wasn't against the laws of the State, ... though, of course, it was against the Law of God ...
 
Upvote 0

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry. "Illegal" means "against the law."

The Genevan government (who, in fact, at this point in history were Calvin's opponents) applied a law that went back to Justinian. How is that "illegal"? Which law did they break?

Now, ers

Yes, against the Highest Law of ALL, the Holy Bible. Quote me ONE verse from the Bible, not Church history, to show what Calvin did was in accordance with the Bible's Teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Alpha.Omega

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
427
194
63
BHill
✟19,808.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you refer to then 10 Commandments, they forbid murder. They don't forbid the death penalty.

so, in God's eyes, what happened Servetus, was justifiable? Chapter and verse from the only Authority, the Bible, please. You are simply arguing against the Bible, and you CANNOT win!
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟108,837.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you refer to then 10 Commandments, they forbid murder. They don't forbid the death penalty.

The Ten Commandments only applied to Hebrews at Sinai and their descendants. They never applied to anybody else, and they don't apply to Jews today, in the era of the New Covenant. Today, it's the law of Jesus that applies.

You can tease executing people for heresy out of Jesus if you want to. It makes you Taliban if you manage to do it.

I am referring to the law of mankind given to Noah and his Sons, wife and daughters, after the Flood, and binding on all of us ever since.

Are you going to try to tease the right to kill people out of Jesus? Yes, yes, our spiritual forebears - Catholic and Protestant both did it - and they went so far as to burn a messenger of God at the stake (St. Joan of Arc) - the question is are YOU going to do it, or are you going to acknowledge the truth: we do not have the right to kill other people, except as justice for them having killed people, or in self-defense.

Hint: just acknowledge the truth and be done with it. Our spiritual forebears followed their culture, which was evil and really quite dumb, and they did evil and stupid things. They were wrong. We don't have to defend them. Rather, if we want our lives and our great-grandchildren's lives to be better, on this world and in the next, we need to learn from our ancestors' mistakes and not repeat them.

Killing people for blasphemy and heresy is indefensible. And the fact that government ratified it changes nothing. You know that. Come on. The bad decisions of Jean Cauvin are not a hill you want to die on. Come on, come to your senses. This isn't a Catholic/Protestant thing, it's a Truth thing. Killing people is always wrong, unless you're doing it to stop somebody from killing.
 
Upvote 0