Does Calvinism make the most sense as far as Christianity Goes?

[Silver]

The better truth is that nothing makes sense at all, but only can some sense be made in one thing relative to another.

Plenty of things make perfect sense.

[Arrogant Christian]

However, the work required no less use of effort or intellect. Theology is by definition not a scientific discipline, nor really a philosophical one, it is its own field of study, that's why it has its own category. However, its not as if 15th century science was much more scientific than theology was then, haha

Yes, but science has advanced and theology has. . . not.

Although a convenient self-fulling prophecy, that is what theology predicts. Additionally, advancement does not provide legitimacy, or the lack thereof, else older skills would be abolished as "illegitimate." Additionally, my replies are not an rationale for Christianity, that is not my purpose on this forum, I was simply pointing out bias that was being used to argue that a man's life's work is not equal to another, when both were applied with no lack of effort or intellect.

[Alex K]

One is a legitimate field of study, one is not. Theology fails as a scientific discipline, and is lacklustre as a philosophical one.

However, the work required no less use of effort or intellect. Theology is by definition not a scientific discipline, nor really a philosophical one, it is its own field of study, that's why it has its own category. However, its not as if 15th century science was much more scientific than theology was then, haha

How would the fact that in the 15th century, science wasn't really a thing, lend any justification to 15th century theology? It doesn't. Incidentally, 5th century BC maths kicks 15th century theology's ass.

Also, solving Sudokus and simultaneously rhyming about my hamster in pentameter requires use of intellect, that doesn't make it a valid pursuit of knowledge either.

[Minimalist]

One is a legitimate field of study, one is not. Theology fails as a scientific discipline, and is lacklustre as a philosophical one.

However, the work required no less use of effort or intellect. Theology is by definition not a scientific discipline, nor really a philosophical one, it is its own field of study, that's why it has its own category. However, its not as if 15th century science was much more scientific than theology was then, haha

But science has matured.

Religion?



Not so much.

[Alex K]

Min, are you saying you are *for* baby murdering muslims for president?

[robvalue]

I think it is one of the more consistent beliefs. It is also the most horrific one. If I actually thought there was a chance this Calvinism stuff was true, I'd be desperately searching for ways to show that it actually wasn't.

I think it's an indication of the evil nature of this religion. If you attempt to remove all the flowery pretence you just get down to a sick theatre for god's amusement only.

[Alex K]

Exactly, rob, and that brings me back to my question...

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that Calvinism is the logical extension of the qualities attributed to the Christian god ... except that if you accept predestination, you must abandon the idea of a god who is perfectly good. Certainly any god who creates people predestined to suffer hell for all eternity is a raging twat.

One is a legitimate field of study, one is not. Theology fails as a scientific discipline, and is lacklustre as a philosophical one.

However, the work required no less use of effort or intellect.

In which case it merits the contempt we reserve for the genius who squanders his intellect searching for fool's gold.

It takes a hell of a smart person to figure out how to play some video games. That doesn't mean that the task is worthwhile.

[Arrogant Christian]

I think that Calvinism is the logical extension of the qualities attributed to the Christian god ... except that if you accept predestination, you must abandon the idea of a god who is perfectly good.  Certainly any god who creates people predestined to suffer hell for all eternity is a raging twat.

However, the work required no less use of effort or intellect.

In which case it merits the contempt we reserve for the genius who squanders his intellect searching for fool's gold.

It takes a hell of a smart person to figure out how to play some video games.  That doesn't mean that the task is worthwhile.

The reason I included the relation to science in that century is that he may have pursued what objectively had the most basis for truth at the time. Deriding good work in retrospect is hardly useful.

[robvalue]

I'm currently listening to Steve Shives go through Van Till's book. He's a very influential Calvinist who is apparently largely responsible for the presuppositional bollocks we have to put up with.

The idea that God is "good" is only presented in name only, in a circular fashion. God is good because God is good. End of story. It just so happens that I would use the term evil instead.

Ironically, the whole book and belief system renders preaching and converting others entirely pointless, or to be seen only as a form of puppetry.