Hey neo calvinist

[Hammster]

I’m not sure if moral failings is the right term, it seems more likely he was a high functioning psychopath, or something if that sort. His notion of god as an arbitrary legalistic reflects that pretty well.

Then you should easily be able to show that from his writings. If you cannot, then it’s just sailboat fuel.

 

[Tom 1]

Then you should easily be able to show that from his writings. If you cannot, then it’s just sailboat fuel.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I should educate you about some aspect of Calvin’s theology so that we can discuss it. If that’s what you mean, why would I do that? If you aren’t already familiar enough with what I’m referring to to have an opinion on in, what’s the point of your posts?

When wanting to understand something, for which there are basic standards supplied the standard you appear to be suggesting is not always or even usually applicable.

By their fruit you will know them - if a dog in the street bites you, you can be fairly certain it wouldn’t make a good house pet. If someone claiming to represent Christ creates a religious philosophy that justifies the creation of a brutal totalitarian city state, you can be pretty confident that you shouldn’t trust that person.

If you think that by definition I am am somehow responsible for educating you about Calvin’s theology, I’d have to disagree. Nothing I’ve said requires an in-depth understanding of that.

 

[Hammster]

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I should educate you about some aspect of Calvin’s theology so that we can discuss it. If that’s what you mean, why would I do that? If you aren’t already familiar enough with what I’m referring to to have an opinion on in, what’s the point of your posts?

When wanting to understand something, for which there are basic standards supplied the standard you appear to be suggesting is not always or even usually applicable.

By their fruit you will know them - if a dog in the street bites you, you can be fairly certain it wouldn’t make a good house pet. If someone claiming to represent Christ creates a religious philosophy that justifies the creation of a brutal totalitarian city state, you can be pretty confident that you shouldn’t trust that person.

If you think that by definition I am am somehow responsible for educating you about Calvin’s theology, I’d have to disagree. Nothing I’ve said requires an in-depth understanding of that.

Thanks for making that clear. Your posts have been less than charitable, which, according to your argument, is fruit by which to judge you. Therefore, there’s nothing about your argument that should be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[Tom 1]

Thanks for making that clear. Your posts have been less than charitable, which, according to your argument, is fruit by which to judge you. Therefore, there’s nothing about your argument that should be taken seriously by anyone.

On the scale of having an uncharitable opinion of a religious dictator, responsible for much suffering and death, and being such a person, I know where I prefer to be placed.

 

[renniks]

Unless you can show that his teachings are wrong, his actions are irrelevant. That’s why it’s good to not use fallacies when making a point.

That silly. Why would I believe the writings of someone who was immoral in actions? Don't actions spring from beliefs?

 

[Hammster]

On the scale of having an uncharitable opinion of a religious dictator, responsible for much suffering and death, and being such a person, I know where I prefer to be placed.

As long as you compare yourself to others, age not to Christ, you’ll always come out looking good.

 

[Hammster]

That silly. Why would I believe the writings of someone who was immoral in actions? Don't actions spring from beliefs?

Every teacher (Paul, Peter included) had immoral actions. Heck, Peter was rebuked by Paul for ignoring the gospel, a high crime in Paul’s mind. Should we disregard their teachings? Or should we examine them on whether or not they are true?

Personally, if you don’t want to read Calvin, that’s fine. I’m not an apologist for him. But as Christians, we should understand that we’ve all done things that we know were sinful. That doesn’t mean that everything gets disregarded because of it. So let’s not hold others who lived in a different time under a different type of government to different standards.

 

[Clare73]

So it's ok to burn heretics?

Non-responsive. . .

I ask you, is it okay for God to destroy children and babies?

 

[Tom 1]

As long as you compare yourself to others, age not to Christ, you’ll always come out looking good.

Depends who the others are lol, and what the criteria are.

 

[Clare73]

Calvin’s actions as a civic leader are linked to his disturbing notions of an arbitrary, sociopathic god. The idea doesn’t apply when the whole apple is rotten.

Would that be the God of 1 Samuel 15:2-3?

 

[Hammster]

Depends who the others are lol, and what the criteria are.

Christ is the criteria.

 

[Tom 1]

Christ is the criteria.

Others! Now it's just Jesus? That yardstick got more difficult to use all of a sudden.

 

[Tom 1]

Would that be the God of 1 Samuel 15:2-3?

Would that be Calvin's god, do you mean, or would that be the god of the whole bible?

Either way, selecting a defined enemy for a defined reason can't really be described as arbitrary. Genocidal massacre could be defined as cruel, violent, brutal and so on, but as it's been a pretty common practice in human history all over the world I don't think sociopathic would be quite the right term, it's generally been more a question of perspective.

 

[Clare73]

I think you have a wood/trees issue here. Spending hours (years) poring over the finer points of Calvins' theology is for the birds. Why do you think Jesus, and the NT as a whole, continually steers away from pointless, endless theological discussions? Why did Jesus avoid getting drawn into discussions with 'experts'? Jesus' words are clear, if you want to understand God, stay away from the legalists.

Except when he didn't (Luke 20:19-26, Luke 20:37-40; John 10:34-36).

 

[Clare73]

Would that be Calvin's god, do you mean, or would that be the god of the whole bible?

Non-responsive.

So the God of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is just Calvin's God, and not the God of whole Bible.

That makes no sense.

 

[Tom 1]

Except when he didn't (Luke 20:19-26, Luke 20:37-40; John 10:34-36).

Do you consider those to be long theological discussions? If you've ever taken part in one, I doubt it stopped at a few sentences.

 

[renniks]

Non-responsive. . .

I ask you, is it okay for God to destroy children and babies?

We aren't God. We didn't create life so have no right to take it. Certainly not because of beliefs.

 

[Tom 1]

Non-responsive.

So the God of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is just Calvin's God, and not the God of whole Bible.

That makes no sense.

I don't understand what you are saying.

I was asking what your original question meant. Please read the post you first responded to and start again from there.

 

[Clare73]

Do you consider those to be long theological discussions? If you've ever taken part in one, I doubt it stopped at a few sentences.

If you've got the truth on your side, they aren't long, they end at the truth.

 

[Tom 1]

So the God of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is just Calvin's God, and not the God of whole Bible.

That makes no sense.

No, it doesn't.