Evolution v Creationism

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet, in its efforts to extend God's grace to all men, Arminianism raises mankind to such a level that it would seem we hardly require God in the first place. Though it glosses over the morbid reflection Calvinism gives of mankind, Arminianism still suffers from the same fundamental issues, in that a loving God would create a creature with the capacity to sin, and punish them for it. Ultimately, their sins are still a product of what they are - imperfect beings, created as such by God.

A man has nothing, save that which is from God. Arminius simply rephrased traditional Christian belief in opposition to Calvin. Traditional Christianity is not without it's philosophical problems but in order for man to Sin he must have the capacity to act independently of God's direct Will; it is a by-product of being able to freely love God. Without free will love of God must be forced, and is therefore not love.

If that is what Magyar was suggesting, then he should have said so. I also do not understand your comment about my denomination, do we read the same scripture or not (generally speaking of course, at least as far as the parts about Yahweh being a "war god" go)?

I believe it is in Isaiah, though I am not sure, "The Lord is a Man of War", we quote it on EB I's loading screens. In any case, I would say he was more of a War/Sky God, something like Tyr or Zeus. In any case, if you knew the Creeds you would no Magyar's point was implicit, it doesn't need to be said.

Also, just because we can get by as Christians with the NT does not mean that the OT is not important, otherwise Jesus would not have bothered referring to it. If people give out special NTs or whatever, then that is of course fine, in fact it is probably recommended over ploughing through the whole thing from Genesis, although that's what I did myself. As I said, Jesus is our only example and that's all we need to know, so if Jesus worshipped Him, as He was in the Jewish scriptures, then we should too. Jesus never once told the Jews they were worshipping a false God, he simply told them of their failures to serve him.

Jesus said they were worshipping him the wrong way, and he provided ample examples of bad laws in scripture (the food laws, sex laws, marriage laws etc.). Face it, Jesus rejected the spirit of the Old Testemant and much of the content.

Though it might be surprising to people here, I am a pretty timid soul in RL. I might have easily been discouraged by your confident dismissal of my understanding of God, if you have not then went on to ascribe it to Calvin as well, which is quite clearly a foolish and unfair thing to do, even to the most hard-headed Pelagian.

Calvin's system makes a nonsense out of Grace, and I am hardly the first man to say so, Hooker, whose statue I pass every day, was no fan of Calvin either. Just because Calvin was clever does not mean he was pious or close to God. I would go so far as to say Calvinism sacrifices traditional Christian love, compassion ans sympathy in favour of a rigourous, and closed, system.

I cannot understand your argument that God should save us all, as if we are deserving of it, or He is somehow obliged to take mercy on us. But then that stems also from our differences in what we see to be the fallen nature of man. In it's efforts to counter Calvinism (which we should remember, that is what Arminianism aimed to do - Calvinism is often seen as the negative, defensive reaction to Arminianism on account of the 5 TULIP points being raised in the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrants, as if Arminianism was somehow the more 'natural' form, and Calvinism a corrupt offshoot), the Arminians attacked the very roots of Christianity - that we are all born sinners. And so this creates many problems that are undeniably equal to that many see in the doctrine of limited atonement. It seems that this semi-Pelagianism would have us believe that we have the right to boast of our salvation as Grevinchovius so proudly did, as though the scripture was mistaken to ever tell us that it was a gift and not the result of works that we could boast of. Arminianism makes man out to be a sort of morally neutral agent; fundamentally good and yet somewhat defective, and as such a creature that should be seen as fit for God's mercy. Calvinism doesn't, it teaches we are sinners, in fact more than that, it teaches that we are sin in our fallen condition. God transforms us from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:8), and does not speak of a dull flame, or a match waiting to spark itself with some prompting (for the holy ghost is no more than a general moral persuasion in Arminianism, apparently somehow appealing to us when we still have a heart of stone).

And so, in fairness, we each have elements to our teachings which many Christians today would not be happy to lend their support to. The fact is, some people are saved and others are not. You can attack me and tell me that limited atonement is an un-Christian doctrine, but there seems to me nothing more un-Christian that boasting of salvation, as if one person deserves it more than anther. And if it is by chance that some are saved and others not, then this seems hardly more ideal than limited atonement in the first place.

I believe God's love is universal and unlimited, it saddens me that you cannot see that at the root of my arguement. This has nothing to do with boasting, with any complex system it is simply this:

I believe God loves me no more and no less than he loves anyone else, that he is the universal father of creation and that he offers salvation to all his children without bias. I also believe that he must suffer greatly when even one of his children rejects him and refuses to ask for forgiveness. This is a God, and a father, who extends his love to all his children from the moment they are concieved, at least, whose Grace touches every living thing.

This is my God, who walked among his children in the form of one of them, incarnate as a man, and who dined for their sins, and to show them an example of love, sacrifice and forgiveness.

Arminius, like those before him, believe that man was not inherently good, but good by the Grace of God, and that this Grace was universal, a gift to all men and women everywhere.

I do not think this is remotely your God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A man has nothing, save that which is from God. Arminius simply rephrased traditional Christian belief in opposition to Calvin. Traditional Christianity is not without it's philosophical problems but in order for man to Sin he must have the capacity to act independently of God's direct Will; it is a by-product of being able to freely love God. Without free will love of God must be forced, and is therefore not love.

So you do admit that those problems exist?

As for being forced to love God, this is not the case with Calvinism. Calvin believed that we are born as slaves to sin, we do not have the capacity to love God. The process of giving us a heart of flesh is forced, since otherwise it would not come about. But after that, Calvin believed fully in free will. Having been born again, you love God because you want to. Although salvation is of the lord, there is still free will in moral choices.

I believe it is in Isaiah, though I am not sure, "The Lord is a Man of War", we quote it on EB I's loading screens. In any case, I would say he was more of a War/Sky God, something like Tyr or Zeus. In any case, if you knew the Creeds you would no Magyar's point was implicit, it doesn't need to be said.

So where do you draw the line? Was it this war god that gave the covenants to Israel? Was it this war god who told the prophets to predict Jesus' coming? Where exactly is the real Yahweh in the OT, if he is even there at all? And if not, why would Jesus refer to Him, and promise to fulfil his prophecies? Are we left with our own imagination, as though the scripture is entirely unreliable?

Jesus said they were worshipping him the wrong way, and he provided ample examples of bad laws in scripture (the food laws, sex laws, marriage laws etc.). Face it, Jesus rejected the spirit of the Old Testemant and much of the content.

Indeed they were, it was not my aim to dispute that the Jews weren't worshipping the way they should be. But I do not think that Jesus so much rejected the OT, as he did expand upon it. He took the laws of tablets of stone and wrote them on our hearts, he took the basic ethnic-based laws and traditions and made them into a serious moral code. One example I think I've gave before because I like it so much is that of the Sabbath. They didn't abandon the Sabbath, but instead changed it from a day of the week, to our eternal rest in Jesus Chritst - great stuff! Also, I think the rather miraculous fact that an Israeli state exists today is testament to the validity of the Old Covenant.

Calvin's system makes a nonsense out of Grace, and I am hardly the first man to say so, Hooker, whose statue I pass every day, was no fan of Calvin either. Just because Calvin was clever does not mean he was pious or close to God. I would go so far as to say Calvinism sacrifices traditional Christian love, compassion ans sympathy in favour of a rigourous, and closed, system.

I can only urge you to study Calvin's life, and you will quickly see that it is undeniable that he was a very pious soul. And it is Arminianism that makes nonsense out of God's grace. It turns it from a complete, transformative force, wholly regenerating sinners into godly folk; into nothing more than, as the Remonstrants put it, a "general moral persuasion". So this force is nothing greater than any wordly force, no more effective than the arguments any man may put forward, made disctinct only by its supernatural form - all this to avoid trampling upon our free will. Indeed it makes God's grace a very delicate and innefectual force, I hardly see how it could be said to have any effect at all if we are truly said to be sinners.

I believe God's love is universal and unlimited, it saddens me that you cannot see that at the root of my arguement. This has nothing to do with boasting, with any complex system it is simply this:

I believe God loves me no more and no less than he loves anyone else, that he is the universal father of creation and that he offers salvation to all his children without bias. I also believe that he must suffer greatly when even one of his children rejects him and refuses to ask for forgiveness. This is a God, and a father, who extends his love to all his children from the moment they are concieved, at least, whose Grace touches every living thing.

This is my God, who walked among his children in the form of one of them, incarnate as a man, and who dined for their sins, and to show them an example of love, sacrifice and forgiveness.

Arminius, like those before him, believe that man was not inherently good, but good by the Grace of God, and that this Grace was universal, a gift to all men and women everywhere.

I do not think this is remotely your God.

I am well aware a universal love is at the heart of your argument. The issue is that when you combine universal love with the fact that not all are saved by it, then you have a very flimsy, innefectual, and far from absolute love indeed. Does a parent say to their teenage child, "well, you are in such a hormonally-inspired rage as to no longer wish our love, and so for the sake of your free will we will spare you from it"? Of course not, by its nature love it absolute. Of course, you could say that God loves them as he sends them to hell, which leaves us wondering that if God truly knows what is good for people, why does He not save them? The wills of all men resist God at some time, something which we surely must both confess to. Why then, if he loves them, would God not intervene for the people's own good. He's supposed to be a shepherd, does he sit by as His sheep wander off to die in their ignorance? He hardly seems fit to call Himself by such a term.

And again, the heart of my issue with Arminianism remains. Why do some accept God and not others? Are we better, or just lucky? I have never heard this answered effectively.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you do admit that those problems exist?

Yes, there is a difficulty in reconciling his revealed Will to give man free will with his unlimited knowledge, this is, however, due to not understanding the means by which he exercises his power. There is not problem as to why man was given free will to begin with, there is not inconsistancy in God's divine Will itself.

As for being forced to love God, this is not the case with Calvinism. Calvin believed that we are born as slaves to sin, we do not have the capacity to love God. The process of giving us a heart of flesh is forced, since otherwise it would not come about. But after that, Calvin believed fully in free will. Having been born again, you love God because you want to. Although salvation is of the lord, there is still free will in moral choices.

If man is a slave to sin, it is by the will of God.

If man does not have the capacity to love God, it is the will of God.

If man is utterly corrupt unless he is forced to redemption, that is by the will of God.

Also, Calvin did not actually believe that you loved God because you want to, he believed God wills that you want to. Your love is the direct will of God, since Special Grace is irresistable.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is a force in the universe to oppose God.

So where do you draw the line? Was it this war god that gave the covenants to Israel? Was it this war god who told the prophets to predict Jesus' coming? Where exactly is the real Yahweh in the OT, if he is even there at all? And if not, why would Jesus refer to Him, and promise to fulfil his prophecies? Are we left with our own imagination, as though the scripture is entirely unreliable?

All excellant questions, and equally pertinant for the NT which has also been corrupted.

You could place your faith in God, rather than a book written and authorised by old men long after the fact.

Indeed they were, it was not my aim to dispute that the Jews weren't worshipping the way they should be. But I do not think that Jesus so much rejected the OT, as he did expand upon it. He took the laws of tablets of stone and wrote them on our hearts, he took the basic ethnic-based laws and traditions and made them into a serious moral code. One example I think I've gave before because I like it so much is that of the Sabbath. They didn't abandon the Sabbath, but instead changed it from a day of the week, to our eternal rest in Jesus Chritst - great stuff! Also, I think the rather miraculous fact that an Israeli state exists today is testament to the validity of the Old Covenant.

Firstly, the State of Israel exists today because of the Holocaust, if you want to ascibe that to God you are beyond all hope, frankly. Aside from that, Jesus CLEARLY rejected the Old Law, he invalidated it, it is explicit.

I can only urge you to study Calvin's life, and you will quickly see that it is undeniable that he was a very pious soul. And it is Arminianism that makes nonsense out of God's grace. It turns it from a complete, transformative force, wholly regenerating sinners into godly folk; into nothing more than, as the Remonstrants put it, a "general moral persuasion". So this force is nothing greater than any wordly force, no more effective than the arguments any man may put forward, made disctinct only by its supernatural form - all this to avoid trampling upon our free will. Indeed it makes God's grace a very delicate and innefectual force, I hardly see how it could be said to have any effect at all if we are truly said to be sinners.

Without Preveniant Grace man would be an animal, that its effect in the world is not immidiately obvious does not detract from the fact that it underpins every aspect of our existence.

As to Calvin, he to me represents the worst of Christian polemicists and hate-mongers, his theology bore rotten fruit during the "Godly Republic" when it was used as the justification for the despoiling of tombs, smashing of alters, and closing of churches. I am surrounded daily by reminders of the destruction that took place in the name of God.

I am well aware a universal love is at the heart of your argument. The issue is that when you combine universal love with the fact that not all are saved by it, then you have a very flimsy, innefectual, and far from absolute love indeed. Does a parent say to their teenage child, "well, you are in such a hormonally-inspired rage as to no longer wish our love, and so for the sake of your free will we will spare you from it"? Of course not, by its nature love it absolute. Of course, you could say that God loves them as he sends them to hell, which leaves us wondering that if God truly knows what is good for people, why does He not save them? The wills of all men resist God at some time, something which we surely must both confess to. Why then, if he loves them, would God not intervene for the people's own good. He's supposed to be a shepherd, does he sit by as His sheep wander off to die in their ignorance? He hardly seems fit to call Himself by such a term.

And again, the heart of my issue with Arminianism remains. Why do some accept God and not others? Are we better, or just lucky? I have never heard this answered effectively.

So, if you loved a woman, would you rape her to prove your love, or would you let her go if she did not want you? If, once your child had reached their maturity, they no longer wanted anything to do with you, would you lock them up or let them go. Absolute love does not mean unilatteral action.

Your alternative is that God hates most of his children and spiritually rapes the rest.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, there is a difficulty in reconciling his revealed Will to give man free will with his unlimited knowledge, this is, however, due to not understanding the means by which he exercises his power. There is not problem as to why man was given free will to begin with, there is not inconsistancy in God's divine Will itself.

Such practical concerns are only part of the issue with Arminianism. Generally, I think the problem is threefold. Firstly, it lacks scriptural support. Secondly, it has the previously mentioned practical issues. And thirdly, I think it is detrimental to a Christian individual's practice of Godliness, and contradictive with important parts of Christianity in general. The last point is the most important one, with the other two, particularly the second, being secondary issues, but worth noting nonetheless.

If man is a slave to sin, it is by the will of God.

If man does not have the capacity to love God, it is the will of God.

If man is utterly corrupt unless he is forced to redemption, that is by the will of God.

Also, Calvin did not actually believe that you loved God because you want to, he believed God wills that you want to. Your love is the direct will of God, since Special Grace is irresistable.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is a force in the universe to oppose God.

And it is true also with Arminianism, that if man has even the capacity to sin, then he was created that way by God, and it is God's will that he may sin. You have the freedom to do good or evil, but ultimately the very nature of your character on which you are judged is created as it is as a result of God's will.

In this case, I agree with what you say on Calvin, but only so far as our fallen nature is concerned. If you are born a slave to sin, even sin itself, then naturally a forceful transformative process will be needed to give a person a heart of flesh. But having been through such a process, the decision to love God is not forced. It is both God's will that we love Him, and our own.

All excellant questions, and equally pertinant for the NT which has also been corrupted.

You could place your faith in God, rather than a book written and authorised by old men long after the fact.

Of course my faith is fundamentally in God Himself, the book is there for general spiritual guidance and to help to spread the word. Generally speaking it is fine to question parts of the scripture and their reliability. But the issue being raised here over Yahweh is far too integrated throughout the entire scripture to dismiss as an inaccuracy on account of it being written by men. Even the historically earliest events in the OT regarding Yahweh's covenants with mankind are constantly referred to throughout the NT, often by Jesus himself, not to mention the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was based upon the prophecies given to the prophets by the Yahweh of the time period which you are calling into question.

Firstly, the State of Israel exists today because of the Holocaust, if you want to ascibe that to God you are beyond all hope, frankly. Aside from that, Jesus CLEARLY rejected the Old Law, he invalidated it, it is explicit.

A little bit extreme in the first sentence there I think. I remember a quote where one of the French kings asks for proof of God's existence, and he is told something along the lines of "the Jews sire, the Jews!". If that was true a few hundred years ago, then it must be ten times moresoe today when we have an Israeli state. There's a reason why dispensationalism has largely replaced covenant theology in Reformed circles. Of course, there are the usual historic forces which played their role in the Isralei state coming into being, it was not just a case of God snapping His fingers. But then, why do you so readily dimiss God playing an indirect role in such a process? You are happy to say that we evolved through the process of evolution by God's design, and yet you cannot say that God played a similar overseeing role in the state of Israel coming into being.

Also, Jesus quite clearly did not abolish the Old Covenant and much of the OT along with it as you suggested. Jesus himself says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).

Without Preveniant Grace man would be an animal, that its effect in the world is not immidiately obvious does not detract from the fact that it underpins every aspect of our existence.

As to Calvin, he to me represents the worst of Christian polemicists and hate-mongers, his theology bore rotten fruit during the "Godly Republic" when it was used as the justification for the despoiling of tombs, smashing of alters, and closing of churches. I am surrounded daily by reminders of the destruction that took place in the name of God.

Of course God's grace still has a notable role in Arminianism, but it is far less of a force than it is said to be in Calvinism, not such an 'Amazing Grace' at all.

I think you are being harsh on Calvin himself, and that your disapproval would be better aimed at those who upheld the form of Calvinism which led to the things you speak of. Calvin himself never supported violent resistance under even the most extreme circumstances, although in the last version of the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' which were published in 1559, he did point to the case where Daniel disobeyed what he deemed to be an impious royal edict. Though Calvin himself always held to such a position, his successors did not. John Knox brought a more radical form of Calvinism to Scotland, and indeed his works such as 'The Appellation' were important in justifying the Covenanters role in the conflict you speak of, in which Knox argues that the gentry and other important people within society are appointed to their roles by God just as kings are, and as such may use their God-given roles to protect the common people from tyrants. Also, the man you mentioned earlier as being a victim of the conflict, Richard Hooker, actually played an important role in justifying the Parliamentarians. He was a pioneer of the contractarian branches of resistance theories, as he claimed that kings ruled both by divine right and human right, the latter being a form of contract between the king and his subjects.

I can see you very passionately dislike Calvinism, which is fair enough, indeed if I recall correctly you suggested in a past discussion that Calvin could even have ben the antichrist. But I think you must study it more to truly understand it. Just as surely as modern evangelicals spread misinformation about Catholicism such as saints having special powers as you said to me before; so to are there many misconceptions about Calvinism which are readily passed about in the circles which have had little exposure to it.

So, if you loved a woman, would you rape her to prove your love, or would you let her go if she did not want you? If, once your child had reached their maturity, they no longer wanted anything to do with you, would you lock them up or let them go. Absolute love does not mean unilatteral action.

Your alternative is that God hates most of his children and spiritually rapes the rest.

Those analogies are hardly appropriate, since they involve harming people in the name of the love; a spiritual transformation and eternal life in heaven are hardly comparable. Also, they are wrong because in Calvinism it is taught that we have free will to love God once we are saved, it is purely the transformative process that is forced. Before that process takes place, we are sin, we have nothing but a heart of stone, unable to love God, and unable to even want to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Such practical concerns are only part of the issue with Arminianism. Generally, I think the problem is threefold. Firstly, it lacks scriptural support. Secondly, it has the previously mentioned practical issues. And thirdly, I think it is detrimental to a Christian individual's practice of Godliness, and contradictive with important parts of Christianity in general. The last point is the most important one, with the other two, particularly the second, being secondary issues, but worth noting nonetheless.

One is completely a matter of opinion. Many of the passages you think demonstrate limited atonement I think show no such thing, especially since parables have only one meaning, Hooker and Wyclif both demonstrate scriptural support for free will and the irrelevance of any "elect". This is the majoriety view throughout history and across denominations, both before and after Calvin.

Two, practical is not a problem, unless you want to unravel God's divine power. Knowing how God does something is not important, you can't know anyway. Producing an arguement for why he does something is far more important. Calvin presumed to know God's divine plan, he must have believed he was Elect, which meant he believed he was right. The situation was only made worse by his followers, who exasberated the doctrine and virtually claimed it as divine law.

The third is not a problem, because all you have comes from God. If anything Calvinism is worse, because it will, and has, led to individuals believing they are justified in their actions as members of the Elect.

And it is true also with Arminianism, that if man has even the capacity to sin, then he was created that way by God, and it is God's will that he may sin. You have the freedom to do good or evil, but ultimately the very nature of your character on which you are judged is created as it is as a result of God's will.

On the other hand, free will has a justification because without free will you cannot truly love God and have a relationship with him. you are just his slave.

In this case, I agree with what you say on Calvin, but only so far as our fallen nature is concerned. If you are born a slave to sin, even sin itself, then naturally a forceful transformative process will be needed to give a person a heart of flesh. But having been through such a process, the decision to love God is not forced. It is both God's will that we love Him, and our own.

Bigger problem, why does God create people who can't love him?

Of course my faith is fundamentally in God Himself, the book is there for general spiritual guidance and to help to spread the word. Generally speaking it is fine to question parts of the scripture and their reliability. But the issue being raised here over Yahweh is far too integrated throughout the entire scripture to dismiss as an inaccuracy on account of it being written by men. Even the historically earliest events in the OT regarding Yahweh's covenants with mankind are constantly referred to throughout the NT, often by Jesus himself, not to mention the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was based upon the prophecies given to the prophets by the Yahweh of the time period which you are calling into question.

Um, sorry, but I completely dissagree. The Jews had a very good idea of what the Messiah was going to do, based on the prophecies and history of the Torah. Jesus failed completely in their eyes. Cmparison only serves to illuminate human bias in the scripture at both ends.

A little bit extreme in the first sentence there I think. I remember a quote where one of the French kings asks for proof of God's existence, and he is told something along the lines of "the Jews sire, the Jews!". If that was true a few hundred years ago, then it must be ten times moresoe today when we have an Israeli state. There's a reason why dispensationalism has largely replaced covenant theology in Reformed circles. Of course, there are the usual historic forces which played their role in the Isralei state coming into being, it was not just a case of God snapping His fingers. But then, why do you so readily dimiss God playing an indirect role in such a process? You are happy to say that we evolved through the process of evolution by God's design, and yet you cannot say that God played a similar overseeing role in the state of Israel coming into being.

I believe in free will, and I don't believe God would kill millions of people to prove a point. Just because there are still Jews means nothing, you could equally argue it proves free will because God chosen people refused to accept him, which makes no sense as they will be destroyed.

Also, Jesus quite clearly did not abolish the Old Covenant and much of the OT along with it as you suggested. Jesus himself says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).

Scripture is not necessarily divine law, why don't you quote the next verses and then try to tell me he did not reject parts of Hebrew scripture.

Of course God's grace still has a notable role in Arminianism, but it is far less of a force than it is said to be in Calvinism, not such an 'Amazing Grace' at all.

Arguably, Calvinism requires a counterforece, while other theologies do not. So Calvin's God is weaker.

I think you are being harsh on Calvin himself, and that your disapproval would be better aimed at those who upheld the form of Calvinism which led to the things you speak of. Calvin himself never supported violent resistance under even the most extreme circumstances, although in the last version of the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' which were published in 1559, he did point to the case where Daniel disobeyed what he deemed to be an impious royal edict. Though Calvin himself always held to such a position, his successors did not. John Knox brought a more radical form of Calvinism to Scotland, and indeed his works such as 'The Appellation' were important in justifying the Covenanters role in the conflict you speak of, in which Knox argues that the gentry and other important people within society are appointed to their roles by God just as kings are, and as such may use their God-given roles to protect the common people from tyrants. Also, the man you mentioned earlier as being a victim of the conflict, Richard Hooker, actually played an important role in justifying the Parliamentarians. He was a pioneer of the contractarian branches of resistance theories, as he claimed that kings ruled both by divine right and human right, the latter being a form of contract between the king and his subjects.

You last part about Hooker is off, he is reading Wyclif there. Hooker was an important theolgian, I wanted you to read his works, whether or not he was persecuted is not relevant. As to Calvin, men were executed in Geneva for not following religious laws he had pushed for, and with his permisssion.

Fundamentally, Calvin believed God loved some people more than others, I would not accept that on pain or death.

I can see you very passionately dislike Calvinism, which is fair enough, indeed if I recall correctly you suggested in a past discussion that Calvin could even have ben the antichrist. But I think you must study it more to truly understand it. Just as surely as modern evangelicals spread misinformation about Catholicism such as saints having special powers as you said to me before; so to are there many misconceptions about Calvinism which are readily passed about in the circles which have had little exposure to it.

I have seen it used to invoke suffering, on Christians, on others, and to sow division.

Those analogies are hardly appropriate, since they involve harming people in the name of the love; a spiritual transformation and eternal life in heaven are hardly comparable. Also, they are wrong because in Calvinism it is taught that we have free will to love God once we are saved, it is purely the transformative process that is forced. Before that process takes place, we are sin, we have nothing but a heart of stone, unable to love God, and unable to even want to.

Calvin believed in "Saving Grace" and that it was irresistable, it cleared your mind and left you free to love God. In effect, it was forced because Calvin assumed that no one would reject God if not restrained by the Devil. He also argued for Common Grace, which is what stops us killing each other.

The Rape analogy is apropriate because I don't believe in forced trasformation, just because Cavin says it is "Saving Grace" doesn't make it any such thing. Here we have the root of my problem, if you believe in Election as the only means to enter heaven and exercise concience and good thought; what if Calvin was Unelect?

That's Calvinism.