Something small and round

[rvg]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

No, have another look at what I wrote. In its original form it was purely an acknowledgement of human fallability and our entirely subjective and individual viewpoints. That is a doctrine entirely compatable and agreeable to traditional catholic belief. HOWEVER, the way it was propogated led to its perversion.

[rvg]

Well, I'm of course referring to its calvinist incarnation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The same logic could be used for "the fairies told me I'm right". The only difference is the fact that you have more believers on your side than I have on my side.

I don't mean to present that as an argument, it was just a response to those asking how I could be so confident in what I believe.

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

Each of these groups of Christians believes that their own beliefs are right. I believe that what I believe is rooted firmly in the scripture. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. The Orthodox believe they are the only true continuation of the early church.

Just because we have doctrinal differences doesn't mean we don't believe each other to be Christians, although it does become an issue with the more major differences. But yeah, obviously we each have our own understanding of things which we belive to be correct. Just like Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists do. The only difference is that some systems are more exclusive than others, however I dont' think this is a fair justification for dismissing them.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

To argue that God does not reveal any sort of truth to anyone is intolerant. To argue that there is no absolute truth which any person can claim to know is intolerant.

Everyone is intolerant, if intolerant means not accepting other people's beliefs as right. I would say I'm tolerant since I let people go about their business with their other beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should have to accept them as being right. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.

[rvg]

If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

Exactly.

[gaelic cowboy]

Speaking most likely as the only person living in the same county as this hoax the consensus today in the Pub were I had my few beers was incredulity.

This fellow is charging 60 euro a pop apparently to tell you things you want to hear as some kind of fortune teller. The majority of the people are turning up to this vision lark are coming for the craic to be honest.

Here is the local papers take on it

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.

God made Adam with free will, and it was only after he chose sin we arrive at where we are now. Everyone that sins is a slave to sin etc. So God's actual creation can't be said to be evil.

The only real difference between Calvinism and Arminianism etc is that in Calvinism, we are able to use our own free will to lose our free will.

[drone]

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

Institutes of the Christian Religion

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.