Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Evolution, the Bible, homosexuality, history. Your views reflect a lack both of knowledge and of experience.

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on someone who valiantly (and without any ad hominems!) defends his views against so many detractors in various threads. Kudos to you for that sang froid.

But I also remember an exchange we had last year, when you told us that your family dissuaded you from reading the Bible and that you had therefore never really bothered to look at it. I impressed on you that you had a right to read anything you wanted and to pursue your own interest and curiosity. I even pointed out to you various angles from which to study the Bible.

It's not so much that they dissauded me, more it would have been embarassing, yeah I know I need some backbone.

I didn't come here to argue about creationalism, for now I'll just hold my hands up and say I'm not sure, if you re-read the first post you can see I'm not taking an argumentative tone. The only time I ever presented any sort of argument on the matter was when I asked (not stated) if it is possible that DNA similarties equated to common descent, something Sigurd also asked in more detail.

I started arguing more when things got off topic and people started telling me I don't know the Bible. I dind't read the whole thing and works of lots of other theologians to get told that. In fact, things like ATPG has said that I have made up are not actually my ideas. Take for example the non-eternal hell issue. I didn't come up with that, the Jehovas Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists did - two of the scrictest fundamentalist sects of there (with the former of course adding a word here or there).

Call me a sentimental old cynic, but I supposed that it would make you a wiser man. It is disappointing to see that only a year later you censure other peoples' lifestyles and views in the most scathing terms in the name of the Bible and 'nature', though based on scant knowledge of either. Have your curiosity and will to learn suddenly evaporated? Has one year of reading Scripture entitled you to pass judgment on science, parenting and other peoples' emotional or sexual life alike?

Did it teach you false pride instead of modesty?

Who's views did I censure? If I wasn't trying to learn I wouldn't have made a thread asking for other people to present their views. And on the original topic of evolution, I didnt' even argue against it, I just questioned if it could fit with the Bible! As for the thread on homosexuality... that is something I have always believed, that children should be raised by heterosexual parents. I'm not judging them, I'm not doing a Fred Phelps, I'm just saying that I don't think that such an environment would be good for a child. That's just what I think, a gut feeling, do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

Is there any other kind of Puritan (if we're using capital P's)?

[Adrian II]

[..] do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

That depends on the arguments you use. If you appeal to nature, the Bible or history in support of your opinion, you better make darn sure you cover those bases.

I remember I was totally delighted the first time my oldest son started talking to me. I mean talking as in: making sense of an issue by using his own brains, his own imagination, instead of preconceived notions handed to him by adults, including me.

I asked him what made Odysseus a hero, expecting the standerd kiddy answer that Odysseus was a winner. Instead, my son said: 'Because he was smart.' So I asked him what made Odysseus smart, expecting something along the line of: because he out-smarted his adversaries. Instead, my son said; 'Because he knew his own limits.'

Boink!

In his eleventh year of life, my son hit the fount of all wisdom. Just like that, between two bites of a sandwich. And thanks to a children's version of Homer, of course. It made him discover something about himself. That's what the good books are for, if they serve any useful purpose at all. Same goes for nature or history: in the end they are sources of self-knowledge for us, not of (natural) history or jurisprudence.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah it was coming eventually.

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?





PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?





PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear

Stop trolling.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not so much that they dissauded me, more it would have been embarassing, yeah I know I need some backbone.

I didn't come here to argue about creationalism, for now I'll just hold my hands up and say I'm not sure, if you re-read the first post you can see I'm not taking an argumentative tone. The only time I ever presented any sort of argument on the matter was when I asked (not stated) if it is possible that DNA similarties equated to common descent, something Sigurd also asked in more detail.

I started arguing more when things got off topic and people started telling me I don't know the Bible. I dind't read the whole thing and works of lots of other theologians to get told that. In fact, things like ATPG has said that I have made up are not actually my ideas. Take for example the non-eternal hell issue. I didn't come up with that, the Jehovas Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists did - two of the scrictest fundamentalist sects of there (with the former of course adding a word here or there).

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.

Who's views did I censure? If I wasn't trying to learn I wouldn't have made a thread asking for other people to present their views. And on the original topic of evolution, I didnt' even argue against it, I just questioned if it could fit with the Bible! As for the thread on homosexuality... that is something I have always believed, that children should be raised by heterosexual parents. I'm not judging them, I'm not doing a Fred Phelps, I'm just saying that I don't think that such an environment would be good for a child. That's just what I think, a gut feeling, do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

It's your tone, not your content.

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.



Is there any other kind of Puritan (if we're using capital P's)?

You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

[Kadagar_AV]

Stop trolling.

Huh?

You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your therad start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Incongruous]

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.

It's your tone, not your content.

On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.

You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhy, you seem to have made it an art to avoid direct questions. It's not a debate technique that leads very far, you know.

let me remind you:

You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your thread start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

And you make an art of of not following threads properly.

Generally speaking I think the evidence is quite stongly in favour of evolution, although it is not completely beyond dispute, as Sigurd showed. Obviously as a Christian I see if I can reconcile it with my faith and specifically the Bible, and if you'll read you can see that I say it is possible that theistic evolution is what happened, although I am not quite comfortable with how such an interpretation sits with the scripture.

So for the moment I'm just going to hold my hands up and not take an opinion, I think I can still get on with life that way.

[Incongruous]

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

Cathar?

Perhaps simply a Catholic whom wishes the Church to go back to what Jesus and the Apostles preached? It is not heretical at all to suggest it and is the spirit of the modern church, in the West at least. I do not believe that YHWH in the OT is the same as The Lord God Heavenly Father that I give thanks and praise to. YHWH in the OT seems to be a Hebrew version of the generic god of war and takes on much of the same features as most Near East war gods, however the religious extremism of the Hebrews is exceptional. I believe that the Covenenat of Israel was proved false with the ministry of Jesus, I believe he made it quite clear that God intended a covenant with all people. Whether it was through the friendship of Publicans or his attacks on the way the Temple had been used. the YHWH who called for slaughter, I think was merley the political tool of Hebrew leaders.

Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecy, but that does not mean he agreed with the OT, he clearly did not agree with most of if we look at his sermon on the mount. The thing reads like a history of war in Israel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.

You yourself have said you are not willing to make private interpretations, or to conduct your own exegesis.

On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.

You might want to consider why the other Christians here find your views objectionable, it has to do with the content of them.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

In any case dissenter is the wrong word, Puritans fell into two groups. Those willing to work within the Church and respect others, now the Low Church, and those not. The latter are largely extinct, though their ilk has recently resurfaced in the modern "Evangelical" Churches.

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

You called a Roman Catholic a Cathar, that frankly is absurdly foolish to say the least.

I'm with him, and so is the Pope, and Canterbury, and the Methodists, a lot the Baptists, the Pentacostals.... Jesus clearly rejected much (not all) of the OT.

As to Calvinsim not being a form of Christianity. Argueably the conception of God is completely different, and the "Reformers" believed that only the "Elect" that is, Calvinists, entered heaven.

So maybe Calvinism isn't a form of Christianity, personally, I have seen that theology do more harm than good on and individual and collective scale.

[Tribesman]

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

buy it an island and claim it on expenses

[Rhyfelwyr]

You yourself have said you are not willing to make private interpretations, or to conduct your own exegesis.

You might want to consider why the other Christians here find your views objectionable, it has to do with the content of them.

Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

In any case dissenter is the wrong word, Puritans fell into two groups. Those willing to work within the Church and respect others, now the Low Church, and those not. The latter are largely extinct, though their ilk has recently resurfaced in the modern "Evangelical" Churches.

OK, I won't start an argument over semantics.

You called a Roman Catholic a Cathar, that frankly is absurdly foolish to say the least.

I'm with him, and so is the Pope, and Canterbury, and the Methodists, a lot the Baptists, the Pentacostals.... Jesus clearly rejected much (not all) of the OT.

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

As to Calvinsim not being a form of Christianity. Argueably the conception of God is completely different, and the "Reformers" believed that only the "Elect" that is, Calvinists, entered heaven.

So maybe Calvinism isn't a form of Christianity, personally, I have seen that theology do more harm than good on and individual and collective scale.

Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.

Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.

Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.

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.

This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.

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)?

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.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.

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.

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.

[Incongruous]

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

The YHWH reffered to in Deut and Num is not the same God which Jesus talked of, how on earth can you link the two together? By making the Lord a raving loon with bi-polar? The Hebrew chiefs and scribes were clearly using the religion of their people for their own ends. YHWH was a war god, I have read many books on the subject at university and they all either point or make explicit claim to YHWH being a war god. The genocide commited in his name invalidates him as the true God, in fact I think it invalidates him as a god full stop.

That does not mean that God did not talk to the Israelites, but I think that whatever message may have been goven, it was perverted.

Jesus, would most likley agree with me, indeed I agree with him. I mean Christ wasn't very Messianic when he just let himself be executed was he? The Messiah was supposed to come with fire and sword according to the Hebrew scriptures. Scriptures I believe were written by a priesthood bent on some kind of Godly revenge upon Greek, Babylonian, Persian and Roman. They are the ramblings of angry men, Jesus did not agree with all of it, mosy of the OT he disregarded, thus why he was so revolutionary.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

thanks to a children's version of Homer

A children's version? Tsk.

When I was eleven, being the refined intellectual that I am, I had already read Homer in its Latin original.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis, I will assume that was a joke.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When I was 11 all I was reading about was stories like how in a town in Mexico they dig a pit, but then people fall in so they need to fill it, and so they did another pit, etc.

Never mind your fancy continental education systems about philosophy and other such renaissance quirks, here you learn what you need to learn.

[Adrian II]

A children's version? Tsk.

When I was eleven, being the refined intellectual that I am, I had already read Homer in its Latin original.

Yeah, yeah. My kids fart, chew gum and start bitching if Dad doesn't serve them fries on Friday, dontcha worry. Real fries by the way, not the little French poof sticks.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

little French poof sticks.

My girlfriend says that my lack of size isn't important, only what I do with it.