My Thoughts on Calvinism

[Rational Agnostic]

In Calvinist theology, God pre-determines that a large group (perhaps majority) of humans will suffer endless torment in agony. This pre-determination is made long before they are born, and the humans who will suffer this horrific fate are given no choice to exist or not, and would have no opportunity to become "saved" during their lifetimes even if they wanted to. Instead they are created solely as "vessels of wrath" as the bible puts it. My thoughts on this concept of god are as follows: The calvinistic god is the most horrible, evil, and sadistic concept of god ever devised by man. It represents the most diabolical processes possible in human thinking to devise such a horrible character, namely, the Calvinistic god, who gives a certain portion of humanity no ability whatever to escape from their eternal fate as his objects to personally torment forever. This deity is so evil that it would be highly immoral to worship it if it existed (which it of course does not) and I would never want anything to do with such a horrible cosmic monster. While the Satan of the bible is far from an ideal character, he is far more moral than the Calvinistic devil of a god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In Calvinist theology, God pre-determines that a large group (perhaps majority) of humans will suffer endless torment in agony. This pre-determination is made long before they are born, and the humans who will suffer this horrific fate are given no choice to exist or not, and would have no opportunity to become "saved" during their lifetimes even if they wanted to. Instead they are created solely as "vessels of wrath" as the bible puts it. My thoughts on this concept of god are as follows: The calvinistic god is the most horrible, evil, and sadistic concept of god ever devised by man. It represents the most diabolical processes possible in human thinking to devise such a horrible character, namely, the Calvinistic god, who gives a certain portion of humanity no ability whatever to escape from their eternal fate as his objects to personally torment forever. This deity is so evil that it would be highly immoral to worship it if it existed (which it of course does not) and I would never want anything to do with such a horrible cosmic monster. While the Satan of the bible is far from an ideal character, he is far more moral than the Calvinistic devil of a god.

It makes sense. Its a play on perspectives/words.

Non-calvinist believe they have the choice to believe in god. So those who choose to believe will have everlasting life.

Calvinist put that "choice" or emphasis on god making the choice. Whoever choose to believe wasnt actually making "his own" but that of god did it for him.

So the former rests on the choice of the believer. The latter rest on the choice from god. They are both in the same boat. God doesnt make people talk unless they are puppetters. Just the former I feel is more ego. "I' made the decision." The latter rests on god. "I didnt choose. He chose me."

So going by that logic, god only pulls those who do believe. By default, not by god, if we dont believe we dont get benefits.

So, its like blaming the person who gave you the gift all because you see the disbenefit if those who didnt open the gift. Unless it really bothers that person so much, why get upset over a gift they never opened?

The former believes he reaches for the gift of grace God hands him freely. The calvinist says god gave him the gift of grace without the believers effort. I dont see how god makes anyone go to hell. If you dont open the gift. How can you suffer from not having nor reaching for it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Calvinist theology, God pre-determines that a large group (perhaps majority) of humans will suffer endless torment in agony. This pre-determination is made long before they are born, and the humans who will suffer this horrific fate are given no choice to exist or not, and would have no opportunity to become "saved" during their lifetimes even if they wanted to. Instead they are created solely as "vessels of wrath" as the bible puts it. My thoughts on this concept of god are as follows: The calvinistic god is the most horrible, evil, and sadistic concept of god ever devised by man. It represents the most diabolical processes possible in human thinking to devise such a horrible character, namely, the Calvinistic god, who gives a certain portion of humanity no ability whatever to escape from their eternal fate as his objects to personally torment forever. This deity is so evil that it would be highly immoral to worship it if it existed (which it of course does not) and I would never want anything to do with such a horrible cosmic monster. While the Satan of the bible is far from an ideal character, he is far more moral than the Calvinistic devil of a god.

True, but Calvinism resolves a lot of the logical problems with other types of Christian theology. It's internally consistent. Cruel, but consistent.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The concept of Calvinistic predestination is an anathema to rational thought.

Interestingly if you read the Anglican Westminster confession, it is largely based on Calvinism.
Though it is still the Dogma of the church, It is hard to find anyone who believes in it, that is, out side the Charismatic community of Anglicans.
It seems to appeal to people of a distinctive mindset, who are able to see God as other than a God of love but more as a puppet master.
It also lets people blame God for when they go astray... as in, God made me do it.
And is no curb on them sinning, because if they are saved, they are saved what every they do, and if they are not, there is nothing they can do about it.

 

[David T]

In Calvinist theology, God pre-determines that a large group (perhaps majority) of humans will suffer endless torment in agony. This pre-determination is made long before they are born, and the humans who will suffer this horrific fate are given no choice to exist or not, and would have no opportunity to become "saved" during their lifetimes even if they wanted to. Instead they are created solely as "vessels of wrath" as the bible puts it. My thoughts on this concept of god are as follows: The calvinistic god is the most horrible, evil, and sadistic concept of god ever devised by man. It represents the most diabolical processes possible in human thinking to devise such a horrible character, namely, the Calvinistic god, who gives a certain portion of humanity no ability whatever to escape from their eternal fate as his objects to personally torment forever. This deity is so evil that it would be highly immoral to worship it if it existed (which it of course does not) and I would never want anything to do with such a horrible cosmic monster. While the Satan of the bible is far from an ideal character, he is far more moral than the Calvinistic devil of a god.

Clearly jung in his red book is deeply opposed to Calvin's blue book and Luther gray book, and Wesley's pink book. On the left we can see free will is being expressed but in fact wings are a natural growth so the winged man isn't free from wings at all as Wesley would imagine. Now Calvin would have us believe that since the wings are a natural growth that its determined but the problem with that is that the winged man is free to fly not hindered by simply walking. Now revealed truth in context to any of them is I think clearly painted and explained by jungs red book here in the panel to the left. It definitely appears that it comes directly as a form of stardust of some sorts. So this is Confirmed by all the other grant theological minds in christianity. I would sayJoel osteens biodynamic money making theory, where seeding him with 5 dollars will return 10 dollars is brilliantly expressed as revealed truth. Emperically since that's a scientific fact because he has made a ton of money.

I am writing a book about theology its so ****ing brilliant, it's string theory with no strings attached. Btw I actually do have the red book and that pic was just taken. Jung did us a favor but we have not figured it out..... Yet.

 

[David T]

View attachment 19686
Clearly jung in his red book is deeply opposed to Calvin's blue book and Luther gray book, and Wesley's pink book. On the left we can see free will is being expressed but in fact wings are a natural growth so the winged man isn't free from wings at all as Wesley would imagine. Now Calvin would have us believe that since the wings are a natural growth that its determined but the problem with that is that the winged man is free to fly not hindered by simply walking. Now revealed truth in context to any of them is I think clearly painted and explained by jungs red book here in the panel to the right. It definitely appears that it comes directly as a form of stardust of some sorts. So this is Confirmed by all the other grant theological minds in christianity. I would say Joel osteens biodynamic money making theory, where seeding him with 5 dollars will return 10 dollars is brilliantly expressed as revealed truth. Emperically that's a scientific fact he has made a ton of money. I am writing a book about theology its so ****ing brilliant, it's string theory with no strings attached. Btw I actually do have the red book and that pic was just taken. Jung did us a favor but we have not figured it out..... Yet.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

True, but Calvinism resolves a lot of the logical problems with other types of Christian theology. It's internally consistent. Cruel, but consistent.

Well, the bible contains verses that support both calvinism and arminianism, so not sure what you mean about consistency. As far as Calvinists themselves are concerned, most of them perform actions that are inconsistent with their claimed beliefs. For instance, most Calvinists still tell people about Jesus and try to "save" people. Apparently they don't understand that if Calvinistic theology is true, then these efforts are entirely pointless.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The concept of Calvinistic predestination is an anathema to rational thought.

Interestingly if you read the Anglican Westminster confession, it is largely based on Calvinism.
Though it is still the Dogma of the church, It is hard to find anyone who believes in it, that is, out side the Charismatic community of Anglicans.
It seems to appeal to people of a distinctive mindset, who are able to see God as other than a God of love but more as a puppet master.
It also lets people blame God for when they go astray... as in, God made me do it.
And is no curb on them sinning, because if they are saved, they are saved what every they do, and if they are not, there is nothing they can do about it.

Exactly. It is 100% nihilistic theology in fact. Everything is pointless because everyone's eternal fate is already etched in stone. Doesn't matter how many good things the non-elect do or how many sins the elect commit. Won't change anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The concept of Calvinistic predestination is an anathema to rational thought.

Predestination is the inevitable implication of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Predestination is the inevitable implication of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

Not at all, an omnipotent and omniscient God might not choose to use those powers in regard to this creation.
Which would account for how little he involves himself in our lives. There are many things we could do but choose not to. Having an ability has no relationship with how much, if ever it is actually used.

Knowing everything does not mean that you must chose to recall what you know.

Omniscience implies that you know the past, present and future. We have no evidence, at all, that this is in fact possible. Omniscience is a theory with no possible proof. A this time it is in the same ball park as magic.

I would never base my faith on so weak a thread.

I suspect God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient In absolute terms. But that there are things outside even his abilities.

Predestination implies that the future is fixed, which it can not be. Any more than time itself is fixed... which we know it is not. Time at best is variable.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I suspect God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient In absolute terms. But that there are things outside even his abilities.

.

Like making a rock so big he can't lift it, perhaps?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

In Calvinist theology, God pre-determines that a large group (perhaps majority) of humans will suffer endless torment in agony. This pre-determination is made long before they are born, and the humans who will suffer this horrific fate are given no choice to exist or not, and would have no opportunity to become "saved" during their lifetimes even if they wanted to. Instead they are created solely as "vessels of wrath" as the bible puts it. My thoughts on this concept of god are as follows: The calvinistic god is the most horrible, evil, and sadistic concept of god ever devised by man. It represents the most diabolical processes possible in human thinking to devise such a horrible character, namely, the Calvinistic god, who gives a certain portion of humanity no ability whatever to escape from their eternal fate as his objects to personally torment forever. This deity is so evil that it would be highly immoral to worship it if it existed (which it of course does not) and I would never want anything to do with such a horrible cosmic monster. While the Satan of the bible is far from an ideal character, he is far more moral than the Calvinistic devil of a god.

Fortunately, we are free and capable of finding the real God, if we run away from all the phony man made religions. (And man made gods).

 

[Glaurung]

This deity is so evil that it would be highly immoral to worship it if it existed (which it of course does not) and I would never want anything to do with such a horrible cosmic monster.

If Calvinism is correct then your hatred of God is not your own but itself predetermined. Of course you hate God, you're not in the elect. (If you are, then you will infallibly come to God whether you currently like it or not).

Calvinism has a Catholic equivalent called Jansenism, although it was eventually deemed heretical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all, an omnipotent and omniscient God might not choose to use those powers in regard to this creation.
Which would account for how little he involves himself in our lives.

I think God's non-existence better explains how little he involves himself in our lives, but to each his own, I suppose.

I'm not sure it really resolves the contradiction to say that God could be omniscient if he chose to be, but deliberately chooses not to look. For one thing, it doesn't actually address the link between omniscience and predestination to just suggest that maybe God isn't omniscient.

For another thing, if God could be omniscient but deliberately chooses not to be, then this has pretty negative implications for the morality of God that don't easily square with any version of Christianity I've ever heard of.

There are many things we could do but choose not to. Having an ability has no relationship with how much, if ever it is actually used.

The term "omniscience" refers to the effect of the ability, not just the ability. "Omniscient" means "all knowing," not "not necessarily all knowing, but capable of knowing anything if he/she/it/chooses."

Knowing everything does not mean that you must chose to recall what you know.

If you can't recall something, then you don't know it.

Omniscience implies that you know the past, present and future. We have no evidence, at all, that this is in fact possible. Omniscience is a theory with no possible proof. A this time it is in the same ball park as magic.

I would never base my faith on so weak a thread.

We're taking omniscience as a given for discussion purposes... but if you want to play this game, then I'd insist that we go back a few steps and insist that you justify that any sort of god is possible before we start asking whether an omniscient god is possible.

I suspect God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient In absolute terms. But that there are things outside even his abilities.

Sound like you don't accept the basic assumptions that Calvinism is trying to reconcile with each other. This is fine - I don't accept them either - but this is irrelevant to the question of how those assumptions can be reconciled.

Predestination implies that the future is fixed, which it can not be. Any more than time itself is fixed... which we know it is not. Time at best is variable.

I'm not sure I follow you. Why do you say that the future "can not be" fixed?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think God's non-existence better explains how little he involves himself in our lives, but to each his own, I suppose.

I'm not sure it really resolves the contradiction to say that God could be omniscient if he chose to be, but deliberately chooses not to look. For one thing, it doesn't actually address the link between omniscience and predestination to just suggest that maybe God isn't omniscient.

For another thing, if God could be omniscient but deliberately chooses not to be, then this has pretty negative implications for the morality of God that don't easily square with any version of Christianity I've ever heard of.


The term "omniscience" refers to the effect of the ability, not just the ability. "Omniscient" means "all knowing," not "not necessarily all knowing, but capable of knowing anything if he/she/it/chooses."


If you can't recall something, then you don't know it.


We're taking omniscience as a given for discussion purposes... but if you want to play this game, then I'd insist that we go back a few steps and insist that you justify that any sort of god is possible before we start asking whether an omniscient god is possible.


Sound like you don't accept the basic assumptions that Calvinism is trying to reconcile with each other. This is fine - I don't accept them either - but this is irrelevant to the question of how those assumptions can be reconciled.


I'm not sure I follow you. Why do you say that the future "can not be" fixed?

Irrespective of a god or not. And if chance or choice is real. Then the future, even in the short term, can not be fixed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Irrespective of a god or not.

What is?

And if chance or choice is real. Then the future, even in the short term, can not be fixed.

You say "if" - why assume that it is real?

Personally, I don't find it particularly useful to muse about whether events that didn't happen were "possible."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What is?


You say "if" - why assume that it is real?

Personally, I don't find it particularly useful to muse about whether events that didn't happen were "possible."

That was a retorical if.. as in if a=b +1 the a is greater than b

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was a retorical if.. as in if a=b +1 the a is greater than b

The way you said it, it sure came across as an attempt at justifying your claim that the future "can not be" fixed.

Regardless... I'll take your word for it: it was an unrelated statement. So do you have any justification for your claim that the future can't be fixed?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The way you said it, it sure came across as an attempt at justifying your claim that the future "can not be" fixed.

Regardless... I'll take your word for it: it was an unrelated statement. So do you have any justification for your claim that the future can't be fixed?

The butter fly wing effect, and the similar chaos theory, would indicate that chance and very small changes having massive effects, are far more likely than a fixed and unalterable future.
Chaos theory would make any idea of a fixed future, almost infinately unlikely.
That is so close to can't as to make no difference.

Certainly far far more likely than the cavin world view being true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The butter fly wing effect, and the similar chaos theory, would indicate that chance and very small changes having massive effects, are far more likely than a fixed and unalterable future.
Chaos theory would make any idea of a fixed future, almost infinately unlikely.
That is so close to can't as to make no difference.

Certainly far far more likely than the cavin world view being true.

I'm not following your reasoning. The fact that the future is hard for us to predict doesn't have any connection I can see to whether the future is fixed.