Hey neo calvinist

[Clare73]

Your perception of inconsistency is based on your assumption that what you are thinking, in your head, is the same as what I, someone else, am thinking in my head. That is always a bad assumption to make.

Not realizing (thinking about) your double standard does not mean it is not operating in what you say.

These 2 questions might help:

1) Did Jesus, as far as you know, express anger over the deaths of, by the standards of the time, lots of people, from tribes involved in territorial disputes with Israel throughout the OT period?

2) What things did Jesus get vocally angry about?

Irrelevant to the double standard in objecting to "grotesquery."

 

[Tom 1]

Not realizing (thinking about) your double standard does not mean it is not operating in what you say.

Irrelevant to the double standard in objecting to "grotesquery."

All I can say to that is - what?

Your point is that different things can be grotesque?

What do you imagine the double standard to be? If you can explain your thinking it might be possible to divert your confusion over a non existent non application of grotesque to something else I said nothing about, and you forgot to ask about before assuming you already had an answer to, into something that might actually be worth commenting on.

 

[Tom 1]

Not realizing (thinking about) your double standard does not mean it is not operating in what you say.

Irrelevant to the double standard in objecting to "grotesquery."

To save time - like a recap at the beginning of a new episode- here’s the picture so far:

Me: A is grotesque
You(1)this is the bit you forgot) Do you think B is grotesque too?
Me: (2) oh my what an interesting question…

The problem is that you forgot about (1) and got rather ahead of yourself, imagining some double standard had already been established, hence your last post. If you can rewind a bit and exchange your cryptic references for a question, as in (1) then we might get to some version of (2).

 

[Clare73]

All I can say to that is - what?

Your point is that different things can be grotesque?

What do you imagine the double standard to be? If you can explain your thinking it might be possible to divert your confusion over a non existent non application of grotesque to something else I said nothing about, and you forgot to ask about before assuming you already had an answer to, into something that might actually be worth commenting on.

Are we having fun yet?

Does not seeing the double standard regarding objection to "grotesquery" (objection to one; i.e., Calvin, but not to the other; i.e., 1 Samuel 15:2-3) explain why you have it?

 

[Tom 1]

Are we having fun yet?

Does not seeing the double standard regarding objection to "grotesquery" (objection to one; i.e., Calvin, but not to the other; i.e., 1 Samuel 15:2-3) explain why you have it?

Are you aware that you have not yet asked me whether or not I object to something (anything)? You do realise you have not asked that question?

To make things clearer your question could be something like:

Do you object to the command of god in this verse?
Or
Do you consider this command to be grotesque?

Were I then to answer ‘oh no, I think that is perfectly fine’ then - bingo - you would have established that I apply what is meant by grotesque differently to different things.

Do you see? You got ahead of yourself at some point, and forgot to establish the thing you imagine exists.

To avoid any more going back and forth, I’m assuming you’ve dropped the notion that the command in your verse is also arbitrary?

 

[Clare73]

To save time - like a recap at the beginning of a new episode- here’s the picture so far:

Me: A is grotesque
You(1)this is the bit you forgot) Do you think B is grotesque too?
Me: (2) oh my what an interesting question…

Which simple question was not answered.

That's a lotta' dancin' around to avoid a straight-forward answer (which is an answer).

You don't get a free pass on the question, it's either yes or no.

And when choices are required to to be made, affirmation = "yes" while
lack of affirmation = "no". . .which "no" established a double standard.

If you don't mean "no," then it's "yes." . .you get to make it clear.

So, A = Calvin "grotesquery". . . .B = 1 Samuel 15:2-3 "grotesquery,"

Yes = "grotesquery" of A is objectionable. . ."grotesquery" of B is not objectionable
or
No = "grotesquery" of A is objectionable. . ."grotesquery" of B is objectionable.

Which is it. . .Yes or No.

The problem is that you forgot about (1) and got rather ahead of yourself, imagining some double standard had already been established, hence your last post. If you can rewind a bit and exchange your cryptic references for a question, as in (1) then we might get to some version of (2).

 

[renniks]

It's not about rights, it's about what is offensive.

So you don't get upset with God for mercilessly destroying guiltless children and babies
(1 Samuel 15:2-3) because he has the right to do so.

But you do get upset with Calvin who mercilessly destroyed no one. . .and assumed no right to do so.

What's offensive to who? No it's about what we have the right to do and what we don't. Only God is able to judge and only God has the authority to decide who lives and who doesn't, because he appointed each to die at a certain time.

 

[Clare73]

What's offensive to who? No it's about what we have the right to do and what we don't. Only God is able to judge and only God has the authority to decide who lives and who doesn't, because he appointed each to die at a certain time.

Are you sure God didn't appoint to die at that time those who died in the time period under discussion?

Did he appoint criminals to die at the time of their execution by the law?

Does anyone die apart from the will of God, when not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from his will?

 

[JM]

this entire thread is a wasteland for trolls. The thread starter tossed a molotov cocktail of hasty generalizations and acted as if he wanted a truthful conversation.

unsubscribed

 

[renniks]

Are you sure God didn't appoint to die at that time those who died in the time period under discussion?

Did he appoint criminals to die at the time of their execution by the law?

Does anyone die apart from the will of God, when not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from his will?

But woe to the man who causes death unjustly!

 

[Clare73]

But woe to the man who causes death unjustly!

Another topic, apart from God being the one who decides when each one dies.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Calvin was fully involved in each capital decision involving anyone of note, and ultimately responsible for all murder and torture under his regime. All totalitarian regimes have a judiciary, installed by the regime’s leaders. They don’t just set up some private club on their own and start knocking people off. The whole grotesquery would never have existed in the first place without Calvin. Quibbling over whether someone should be beheaded or slow roasted to death over some petty doctrinal dispute was about the extent of his compassion. When it came to dealing with anyone who disagreed with his ideas he was treacherous, deceitful and murderous. Considering him a representative of Christ is insane.

Let's have a bit of cited historical fact to go with all that, just to add some specifics to the generalisation.

 

[renniks]

Another topic, apart from God being the one who decides when each one dies.

Facepalm! It's exactly what we were talking about. Calvin killing unjustly.

 

[Tom 1]

Which simple question was not answered.

That's a lotta' dancin' around to avoid a straight-forward answer (which is an answer).

You don't get a free pass on the question, it's either yes or no.

And when choices are required to to be made, affirmation = "yes" while
lack of affirmation = "no". . .which "no" established a double standard.

If you don't mean "no," then it's "yes." . .you get to make it clear.

So, A = Calvin "grotesquery". . . .B = 1 Samuel 15:2-3 "grotesquery,"

Yes = "grotesquery" of A is objectionable. . ."grotesquery" of B is not objectionable
or
No = "grotesquery" of A is objectionable. . ."grotesquery" of B is objectionable.

Which is it. . .Yes or No.

I’m dancing around to avoid a question you never asked me? That’s a pretty odd thing to say…

Your question now is what? I’m going to guess that what you are asking is do I think words like grotesque can be applied to the order to wipe out the Amelakites? Is that what you are asking me?

if that’s it then sure, such violence, which has happened throughout human history, continues to happen now and will continue to happen into the future, is deplorable. It would be great if it didn’t happen. Maybe at some future point we will learn to collaborate and live in peace. Certainly it is a grotesque thing to witness or hear about such atrocities. There’s a lot to be said about it, but perhaps now you have actually asked me what I think about it (if I understood what your question is) then you can move on to what your point is?

 

[Tom 1]

And when choices are required to to be made, affirmation = "yes" while
lack of affirmation = "no". . .which "no" established a double standard.

Are you genuinely not aware that you never asked me that question, until I pointed out it was missing?

 

[Tom 1]

Let's have a bit of cited historical fact to go with all that, just to add some specifics to the generalisation.

Really, the onus is on you to substantiate the idea that Calvin, as the de facto leader of the Genevan republic, had no responsibility for what happened in that republic. Such a state of affairs, if it were true - which it isn’t - would be a first in human history. Power in Geneva even before Calvin was concentrated in the hands of a few men, the councils didn’t operate independently of that nucleus of power.
Calvin spent the best part of 30 years meticulously forming Geneva in his own image. Prior to his arrival there was at least one inquisition, but the various related outcomes involved some brief jail time and threats of banishment for a few priests. It was only under Calvin that deviations from ‘correct’ beliefs and behaviour came to be punished with such vicious brutality as steadily became the norm.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Really, the onus is on you to substantiate the idea that Calvin, as the de facto leader of the Genevan republic, had no responsibility for what happened in that republic. Such a state of affairs, if it were true - which it isn’t - would be a first in human history. Power in Geneva even before Calvin was concentrated in the hands of a few men, the councils didn’t operate independently of that nucleus of power.
Calvin spent the best part of 30 years meticulously forming Geneva in his own image. Prior to his arrival there was at least one inquisition, but the various related outcomes involved some brief jail time and threats of banishment for a few priests. It was only under Calvin that deviations from ‘correct’ beliefs and behaviour came to lead to such vicious brutality as steadily became the norm.

1. I don't have to substantiate anything. I just go on the history of the time, and Calvin's own writing in his commentaries.
2. You are making the accusative statements about Calvin, and I am asking you to back up your assertions with historical citations.
3. Because we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that although saved by grace through faith in Christ, sin is still present with us. There one sinful person doesn't have much credibility in accusing another sinful person. God does not differentiate between one sin and another. It is all the same to Him. He said that the soul who sins will die. He doesn't say that those who sin great sins will die, and those who sin small sins will not. This is why none of us has the right to accuse Calvin, because in the sight of God we are just as bad as he is. And, if he has exercised faith in Christ to receive grace and mercy for his sins, then if we have done the same, then we are in the same boat as he is. So, maybe God may say to those accusing Calvin or anyone else of sin, "Why are you accusing someone who is depending on My grace and Mercy the same way you are? Are you not the same as the wicked servant who, having been forgiven of a great debt which he could not have repaid, goes and gets another servant thrown into prison for a much smaller debt? What happened to that wicked servant? Might the same thing happen to you if you continue accusing others of sin when you have been forgiven of the great debt of sin yourself?" Something to think about.

The question is, do we think we are holier than Calvin? I don't think so. So I'm not going to accuse Calvin of anything, even if he did those things you say he did, because if I did, then God might turn around and accuse me of all the things I have done in my life that has broken His holy moral law.

 

[Tom 1]

1. I don't have to substantiate anything. I just go on the history of the time, and Calvin's own writing in his commentaries.
2. You are making the accusative statements about Calvin, and I am asking you to back up your assertions with historical citations.
3. Because we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that although saved by grace through faith in Christ, sin is still present with us. There one sinful person doesn't have much credibility in accusing another sinful person. God does not differentiate between one sin and another. It is all the same to Him. He said that the soul who sins will die. He doesn't say that those who sin great sins will die, and those who sin small sins will not. This is why none of us has the right to accuse Calvin, because in the sight of God we are just as bad as he is. And, if he has exercised faith in Christ to receive grace and mercy for his sins, then if we have done the same, then we are in the same boat as he is. So, maybe God may say to those accusing Calvin or anyone else of sin, "Why are you accusing someone who is depending on My grace and Mercy the same way you are? Are you not the same as the wicked servant who, having been forgiven of a great debt which he could not have repaid, goes and gets another servant thrown into prison for a much smaller debt? What happened to that wicked servant? Might the same thing happen to you if you continue accusing others of sin when you have been forgiven of the great debt of sin yourself?" Something to think about.

The question is, do we think we are holier than Calvin? I don't think so. So I'm not going to accuse Calvin of anything, even if he did those things you say he did, because if I did, then God might turn around and accuse me of all the things I have done in my life that has broken His holy moral law.

Pointing something out and accusing someone of something are two different things. Calvin’s actions aren’t hidden, they’re a matter of history.

You’re mixing up judgment on personal matters with the judgement we are all supposed to exercise in deciding who to listen to.

 

[Tom 1]

. I don't have to substantiate anything.

You made a claim, you ought to be able to substantiate it, as you asked me to.

I just go on the history of the time

Such as?

 

[Clare73]

Facepalm! It's exactly what we were talking about. Calvin killing unjustly.

No, it's about Calvin killing, period.