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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Theology is not good work, especially when concocting one so odious as his.

Many famous scientists got key things wrong, but their task was and is more noble by far than any theology you care to mention, because they work to learn and then teach men ... not shackle them.

[Arrogant Christian]

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.

Theology is not good work, especially when concocting one so odious as his.

Many famous scientists got key things wrong, but their task was and is more noble by far than any theology you care to mention, because they work to learn and then teach men ... not shackle them.

Its funny you mention shackle, since it is actually part of Christian theology to "be freed from the shackles of sin, and be put into the shackles of Christ" (paraphrase), but you'll find that any series of beliefs shackle the mind. I know someone will then respond with something like "better shackled to reality than a foolish myth," but that isn't entirely true. People that I have know to have "blind" faith in science very often responded with things like "that [idea] is impossible" and so on, and only a few years later the impossible happens. One thing I have learned in science is that almost nothing is impossible. Yet fully accepting science held back the minds of these people, since they were presupposed to disbelief. Christianity offers no scientific presupposition (excluding the midieval, catholic interpretation of genesis) , therefore it does not limit the scientific mind. Calvin worked to learn and teach men, same as others, in arguably what was better "science" at the time, however your mind appears to be shackled in a way that disqualifies you from considering that.

[Redbeard The Pink]

As a former Presbyterian, I can tell you that no, it does not. I worked really hard to make it make sense for a long time, and it just doesn't. I think people just kind of nod along with it and hope for the best.

[Nope]

It was sort of interesting to read the debates between Catholics and Calvinists on the forum for Catholic Answers. Usually it just ended up in a bible verse slinging contest but at least the Catholics tried to explain how opposing verses actually fit with their theology. The Calvinist tended to ignore verses that didn't fit their ideology so I think that the Catholics came out a little better in those debates.

I have been told that Calvinists do not believe in an omnibenevolent god. I'd agree that their god is an ass but why worship him? Seriously, what is the point?

Drich has gotten annoyed at me for labeling him a Calvinist but some of his statements are similar to what I have read from other Calvinists. Westboro Baptists are a type of Calvinists although it would be unfair to think that they are a fair representation of anyone but themselves. The Good Person test by Ray Comfort is based on Calvinism.

[Arrogant Christian]

It was sort of interesting to read the debates between Catholics and Calvinists on the forum for Catholic Answers.  Usually it just ended up in a bible verse slinging contest but at least the Catholics tried to explain how opposing verses actually fit with their theology. The Calvinist tended to ignore verses that didn't fit their ideology so I think that the Catholics came out a little better in those debates.

I have been told that Calvinists do not believe in an omnibenevolent god. I'd agree that their god is an ass but why worship him? Seriously, what is the point?

Drich has gotten annoyed at me for labeling him a Calvinist but some of his statements are similar to what I have read from other Calvinists. Westboro Baptists are a type of Calvinists although it would be unfair to think that they are a fair representation of anyone but themselves.  The Good Person test by Ray Comfort is based on Calvinism.

Most practitioners of modern "Calvinism" would say they believe in an omnibenevolent God. I think though they distort the modern meaning of the word "good" though; to them it would mean only that anything that God does is good, and infinitely so, thereby leaving out partial goods and bads. This highly rings of indoctrination to me haha. As for the Catholic debate, I'd say they have an advantage, seeing as they literally prepare Jesuits for years, and for mainly this reason. The "Calvinist" side was most likely formed up of the regular people. At least that's my bet. Additionally, thank you for not condemning all Christians with those Westboro loons. I am not really sure on their belief relationships with other denominations,  but I figure that most protestant churches should have something in common with Calvinism, since Protestantism stemmed from the Reformation that Calvin and Luther headed.

[robvalue]

Well, it's not a question of why you should worship it, rather that you don't have a choice. Since you have no free will, you do as you have been programmed. So sayeth the Calvinists.

[Pyrrho]

While it may be the view most consistent with a omni... God, I am completely baffled that predeterminism is supposed to work as a religion. Why does it work as a faith, psychologically? What is the incentive, what is the reward, the appeal? Can someone explain that to me?

It works similarly to other forms of Christianity.  The question of whether God has chosen you or not is largely indicated by the things you do.  (Note, "indicated" means just that, as you do not have a direct proof that God has predestined to heaven any particular person, nor a direct proof that God has not predestined a particular person to heaven.)   If you strive to be a good Christian, you might succeed, and in so doing, that would mean that God selected you.  If, however, you do not strive to be a good Christian, that would be an indication that God predestined you to hellfire and damnation.

You see, it is not as if there were a litmus test to see if you have been selected by God or not.  So one sees the same sorts of indications as one sees in other forms of Christianity.  And of course there is heaven and hell to motivate people, as well as the social pressures from those around one, just the same as any other religion.


Perhaps, though, you are concerned about the issue of free will.  Think for a moment, though, about the people who say they are determinists.  Do they really do anything much different from those who say we have free will, other than affirm a few different statements?

[Pyrrho]

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

Theology is not philosophy.  You may have been misled by the fact that many theologians use philosophical arguments (typically, malformed ones) for various purposes.  However, some theologians use tales of quantum mechanics for various purposes, too (and that are likewise typically malformed), and that does not make theology a science either.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Theology is not good work, especially when concocting one so odious as his.

Many famous scientists got key things wrong, but their task was and is more noble by far than any theology you care to mention, because they work to learn and then teach men ... not shackle them.

Its funny you mention shackle, since it is actually part of Christian theology to "be freed from the shackles of sin, and be put into the shackles of Christ" (paraphrase), but you'll find that any series of beliefs shackle the mind. I know someone will then respond with something like "better shackled to reality than a foolish myth," but that isn't entirely true. People that I have know to have "blind" faith in science very often responded with things like "that [idea] is impossible" and so on, and only a few years later the impossible happens. One thing I have learned in science is that almost nothing is impossible. Yet fully accepting science held back the minds of these people, since they were presupposed to disbelief.

Well it's a good thing that I didn't make the argument you're rebutting, then. Science is not necessarily liberating, but it is educating.

As for equating science and religion, I'll take your word for it when you can show me a religion that submits its precepts to peer review and objective study; those are the sine qua non of science. That some people attribute to science more capability than it has does not mean that science is worthless, it means that people don't always understand the limits and uses of things.

Christianity offers no scientific presupposition (excluding the midieval, catholic interpretation of genesis) , therefore it does not limit the scientific mind.

Indeed. It's presuppositions are distinctly nonscientific.

Calvin worked to learn and teach men, same as others, in arguably what was better "science" at the time, however your mind appears to be shackled in a way that disqualifies you from considering that.

"Arguably", lol. "Science", lol. Theology is not a science. It has no empirical phenomena to study. It has no evidence to consider. Theists cannot even agree on which god(s) exist and which are figments.

As for your ad homeneim attack, I'm going to ask you politely to stop that sort of bullshit. This is the only time I will do so. We've a had a civil conversation so far, but you don't know jack-shit about me, and in that case making uncharitable assumptions is insulting. I make change in the coin tendered. The nature of this conversation is now entirely in your lap.

To answer your point, I actually understand that not only does science have limits, reason does as well. As a creative musician and writer, I'm pretty well in touch with my non-Apollonian side. I know that applying science to something like spirituality is like trying to hammer a pronoun with a fish taco. However, religions make testable claims, and that includes Calvinism. I'm looking forward to you presenting evidence for your beliefs. Until then, I'm skeptical.

Let us hope that puts your insulting assumptions to bed, that we may have a nice discussion.

[Pyrrho]

...

I have been told that Calvinists do not believe in an omnibenevolent god. I'd agree that their god is an ass but why worship him? Seriously, what is the point?

...

Children starve to death in the world whether one is a Calvinist or a Catholic, so I fail to see how the matter of Calvinism versus Catholicism has any bearing on the goodness or lack of goodness of God.  No matter what extra stuff one adds on, once one believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being, it must be an ass or the world would not be as it is.  So your question is applicable to all religions that claim the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being.


(I believe, though, that the point would be to avoid hell and get into heaven.)