Gee uh no kidding Abigail. (I'm laughing) This thread wouldnt have went two pages without you. Let me tell you why. You always always always :) , make bible slinging verse quoters , and doctrinal slingers put there postion to good hard application. I have never seen anybody do that quite like you. You keep people honest Abigail and that terrific. If people are listening to what you say? It expands the conversation in a terrific way, because it makes someone ask if there is any balance in what someone is saying. And here's the thing Abby, some doctrine, it really is non-sensical, and the fact is you always point some of that out specifically with you, if it makes sense or not.
Thanks, Sky. I like a good "intellectual" debate if it is friendly. But in the end, if there is no way to apply it to life, no way to live it, then it doesn't necessarily benefit me beyond the exercise of thinking through my portion of the argument.
The other side of that too is, you can read the Bible and debate its meaning all day long - - forever. Is there a trinity? Are the dead alive? Were 4 or 6 Crucified - and again, I do enjoy those discussions and often learn from them - but, I don't think anyone can ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether such things are so or not. So, while I am interested and enjoy these discussions, in the end it boils down to one very simple thing - love. How to live love.
So, when we can discuss things that talk about what THAT means, there is something we can really apply!!!
When I was a freshman at a Lutheran College I took 15 credits of biblical Greek for only one reason, I had to think my way through VPW stuff and I thought to figure out all this guys angles. Turns out? I was wrong, I never needed the Greek at all for one reason: VPW and his Greek that was part of the disguise. Earlier in this thread once when I posted Calvin, you said that you need more to understand the context and I was thinking, with Calvin where does one stop and start? Heres the humorour part to me: Earlier today I was reading more Calvin, he was talking about two kinds of grace (I forget I think it was operating and co-operating grace). I am thinking to myself, there probably arent very many people who are going to think in these terms, who want to seperate the two for one reason. Its sick, and here the thing Abigail, that sickness I think its funny but it has to be part of the card trick. There just aint no other stinkin reason for it.
I agree here too - it can be like a sickness. Getting so caught up straining at gnats. It happens to me too and I can make myself crazy trying to figure out what the gnat means - no kidding!!! But that is what it is, straining at gnats.
I see the card trick too. I swallowed that one hook, line and sinker in PFAL. Not that there wasn't anything valuable to PFAL, but there were a lot of gnats. In the end, those gnats killed everything good about TWI. Even the people who made it good - they either left or sold themselves out to the perpetuation of the organization.
Calvinists love to quote this passage: John 6:44 which says " No man can come to me, except the father which has sent me draw him...." they use this scripture to float their theory of Unconditional Election.
in doing so they forget the other "draw me" features of the Father which say: John 12:32 " If I be lifted up from the earth will draw all 'men' (italics) unto me" In doing so they run completely contrary to the wisdom of God features of righteousness and the salvation passages of Romans 10:6-10. What they do is pull Christ down.
I was looking for Calvinist websites to see if I could find posters of there faith, the ones I found have members and they hardly ever post. Thats because they have there black box and dont have any thing new to talk about. It's not a living way, its a dead faith they have.
Having a model which explains the workings of an organization is helpful to explain its workings. A long time ago I equated TWI to the Frankenstein Model, in order to be “nice” and “fair” I will use a little more tactful analogy, which describes the workings of Calvinism.
Like all good cults, they even have there acronyms. Calvinism incorporates concepts like
savinggrace and irresistablegrace and Sovereignty features. Thus, they become symbolic of the Calvinistic world where living bible principals become reduced to objects. (The word acronyms may be a bit of a stretch, but I have no other word to describe something that is an entirely new concept)
Here’s a model ( If anyone is still interested on how the Calvinistic Cult works:)
The entire ideology essentially functions like a big semi-trailor truck. It’s the pre-destination or UnconditionlelectionSemiTruck. Inside the truck, it comes complete with the Calvinistic savinggracemobile. The Calvinistic savinggracemobile has a trailor attached to it called the Calvinistic irresistablegracetrailor. Now, because your Totally Depraved or Totally Unable; the UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck comes around the corner, to take care of all your problems. It does so by the following action: The Savinggracemobile comes off the UCSemiTruck. You don’t even make up your own (will) to get in and go for the ride. This is because your will is so degraded by the Cult model, you don’t even have much of one left. Thus, the savinggracemobile, because of it’s part of the UCSemiTruck ideology does it for you because your will is the T in Tulip its Totally Unable. So what the Savinggracemobile does, is run you over, and throw you on the mobile for the ride. The Calvinistic irresistablegrace trailor is also self automating. Since your will is so degraded when the trailor appears? Its simply irresistable. The actual model is complete with lots of levers and buttons and stuff. Levers like operating grace and non-operating grace, that Calvin discussed and knew what they where; based on the writings of other philosophers. There has to be a gaymobile attached somewhere here to the savinggracemobile, because God gives people over to things like that who have ideologies that are heresy driven. The UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck, works perfectly because its all based on Sovereignty features all of which are already predetermined. It’s a self-containing ideological black box.
I found a website which is complete with many authors who explain what is wrong with Calvinism.
Some of the authors are well known. Noteworthy is the fact, the Calvinistic model has been under assault from others for years. The views there seem to be pretty good stuff.
Sky, I am curious as to why you have such a beef with these people? Surely not all who follow Calvin think they can just go out and do horrible things?
Sky, I am curious as to why you have such a beef with these people? Surely not all who follow Calvin think they can just go out and do horrible things?
I think its horrible stuff Abigail I really do. The analogy is if VPW was the Kansas City Royals of Major league cults ( A team that hasnt done well in years) these guys are the New York Yankess of Cults.
Having said that, I think I will let it go with my model, because you mentioned it. If someone wants me to defend it, I dont think I need to because I think the facts are self-expanatory. So this is it. :)
I guess I thought modern Calvinists were Presbyterians...and many of them apple pick their doctrines to suit their own consciences, like most other denomination people seem free to do.
They are not like the Way, be like minded or be gone( or lie about what you really believe and spout the accepted words).
The entire ideology essentially functions like a big semi-trailor truck. It’s the pre-destination or UnconditionlelectionSemiTruck. Inside the truck, it comes complete with the Calvinistic savinggracemobile. The Calvinistic savinggracemobile has a trailor attached to it called the Calvinistic irresistablegracetrailor. Now, because your Totally Depraved or Totally Unable; the UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck comes around the corner, to take care of all your problems. It does so by the following action: The Savinggracemobile comes off the UCSemiTruck. You don’t even make up your own (will) to get in and go for the ride. This is because your will is so degraded by the Cult model, you don’t even have much of one left. Thus, the savinggracemobile, because of it’s part of the UCSemiTruck ideology does it for you because your will is the T in Tulip its Totally Unable. So what the Savinggracemobile does, is run you over, and throw you on the mobile for the ride. The Calvinistic irresistablegrace trailor is also self automating. Since your will is so degraded when the trailor appears? Its simply irresistable. The actual model is complete with lots of levers and buttons and stuff. Levers like operating grace and non-operating grace, that Calvin discussed and knew what they where; based on the writings of other philosophers. There has to be a gaymobile attached somewhere here to the savinggracemobile, because God gives people over to things like that who have ideologies that are heresy driven. The UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck, works perfectly because its all based on Sovereignty features all of which are already predetermined. It’s a self-containing ideological black box.
For some reason this UnconditionlelectionSemiTruck reminds me of the song, "The Mystery Train". Anybody remember that, The Mystery train down through the ages it rolled... ? Can't remember the rest of the words...
I guess I thought modern Calvinists were Presbyterians...and many of them apple pick their doctrines to suit their own consciences, like most other denomination people seem free to do.
They are not like the Way, be like minded or be gone( or lie about what you really believe and spout the accepted words).
Thanks Bramble, I think you said well what I was thinking but couldn't figure out how to say. I think most groups/theologies have some right and some wrong. Any doctrine taken to an extreme can be dangerous.
I guess I thought modern Calvinists were Presbyterians...and many of them apple pick their doctrines to suit their own consciences, like most other denomination people seem free to do.
Some of this may be true. I think I said early on in the post that Most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all Presbyterians are Calvinists. This means 2 things: (There may be some Presbyterians churches that have nothing to do with Calvinism and you may have Calvinistic churches unrelated to the Presbyterians at all.) Therefore I only used the doctinal ideology in reference to Calvinists. In addition, there may be some bible believing Presbyterians. :)
I need your comment on one thing Abigail. When I was 19 they were having a big Way International symposium downtown Minneapolis. My Lutheran freind and I thought about going. I thought, maybe I should run up to the stage and warn them. If I would have done that would there been an Abigail in the crowd I could have pulled out? I can't get Oaksphere out of my head. 20 years later he's an athiest? If the people over at TWI had any sense of conscience, they would sell the farm, come out and find people like Oaksphere and pay him his due. He and others deserve it. Isnt a person who goes into a Christian ministry suppose to come out with Christ? His story , for me, it never goes away. Its hurts me to see a man like that. I read Calvin, Abgail, and I process this stuff. Its like a gigantic storm cloud moving in to discount the gospel and hurt people. Thus, you see my reaction.
There are a wide variety of beliefs here at GSC, from TWI /Pfal to athiest and many stops both Christian and non Christian in between.
I was involved in a Presbyterian Church for over a year after our TWi exit...I saw nothing cult like or controling/demanding about it. They were involved in many good works in the community. Thinking was encouraged.
The pastors /elders etc never once demanded to see my sock drawer or monthly budget. I saw them as a vast improvement over the TWI that I knew.
Bramble: In fact the contraption is so slick, you may not see any controlling or demanding features at all. It simply depends on who is running the levers on the contraption. It works to circumvent the protocol of Ephesians 5:5 and others which talk about those three things (That’s its major component and what it does today). The contraption does have control and demanding features built into it however. The contraption is so sophisticated that Calvanist’s haven’t even worked all the levers. (I pointed that out a little in the model) They don’t even know themselves what a machine it is and all the stuff it can do. VPW he was almost a bush leaguer compared this guy. Here’s the reason why: I think VPW never wanted to get too big. He wanted to keep the size at a manageable level for himself. (Still he sent people out working to keep them busy and in the org.) Here’s the proof: VPW taught off the wall things like the 4 crucified and other stuff, to insult mainstream and keep the organizational numbers down for control. In addition, the off the wall VPW stuff was a lever in itself, withwhich, people could NOT just move to a similar organization because they were too different. If VPW didnt do it this way he didnt have enough levers to control the organization. See,with VPW, the control feature on his contraption, was stuff mainstream dispised him for, THEREFORE YOU NEEDED VPW. This guy didn’t do that, because he wanted to run the entire show. Ie(Somebody called him the Pope of Geneva)
I’m unsure when I’ll now have time for significant posting between some conditioning and coursework requirements, but my restraint feature is now turned off with respect to this little fellow.
SKy4it, to be honest, I kind of view Bible Christianity as a whole as having dangerous contraptions built into it, with authority structures and lacks of checks on the powers of authorities in church settings being one-- which being ex twi, I've seen in ugly action.
Where common sense and an understanding for the need to check those powers seems to abide, I do think many churches are fine places to go for spiritual fulfillment, but sometimes some of their beliefs cause all manner of strife.
Those books of order, full of rules, practices, structure etc that so many denominations like Presbyterian have, are those churches attempts to keep their churches from becoming destructive, I think.
A couple other things might be helpful, which I did not explain.
Calvinism has its strongest foothold in the Presbyterian Church. Still, there may be Presbyterian
preachers, who don’t preach the stuff. It’s not at all an only Presbyterian problem. In fact, there may well be Lutherans who are practioners and other denominations who have(and practice) the stuff. It’s INDIVIDUALLY specific, both with its preachers and those that practice it. Undoubtably there are many places where Calvinist books are in the church and haven’t been dusted off for 30 years or more.
With respect to you, I would estimate 1 in 10 people or families attending a church, are window shopping people. (I do that too) You wouldn’t see the results of Calvinism, unless you were deeply involved with those that practice it. Here is the other thing. There are people who go to these churches, (you know the ones who are disinterested and there attendance is marginal) who go to these places for years, and are not involved in the practice of it. To them, its boring, because they are not involved with the participants. They are the innocent bystanders. Hope that’s helpful.
I’m unsure when I’ll now have time for significant posting between some conditioning and coursework requirements, but my restraint feature is now turned off with respect to this little fellow.
Sky4it,
Uh ohh! Now ya done it; you got Cynic MAD (Clue #1: He called you a 'little fellow' :ph34r: ;) ). Be prepared to endure a maelstrom of large and very complex words and phrases, coupled with his World Famous Condescending & Malevolent Attitude, as he defends John Calvin's and his doctrine's 'honour'.
If you really want to find out more about what made John Calvin tick, here's a google search on 'Micheal Servetus', and you'll learn more about what/where Calvin's dogma was coming from, particularly in respect to how to deal with heretics, blasphemers, and other people who had the mitigated gaul to openly differ from his 'orthodoxy'. ... And believe you me, Servetus wasn't the only one who was affected by this kind of malevolence. Not by a long shot.
(Abi, this might serve to help illustrate why some of us anti-Calvinists hold the views we do about this topic, not only about the man's doctrine, but about the man himself. ... Ie., Calvin _definitely_ had a control problem. To put it mildly. )
I need your comment on one thing Abigail. When I was 19 they were having a big Way International symposium downtown Minneapolis. My Lutheran freind and I thought about going. I thought, maybe I should run up to the stage and warn them. If I would have done that would there been an Abigail in the crowd I could have pulled out? I can't get Oaksphere out of my head. 20 years later he's an athiest? If the people over at TWI had any sense of conscience, they would sell the farm, come out and find people like Oaksphere and pay him his due. He and others deserve it. Isnt a person who goes into a Christian ministry suppose to come out with Christ? His story , for me, it never goes away. Its hurts me to see a man like that. I read Calvin, Abgail, and I process this stuff. Its like a gigantic storm cloud moving in to discount the gospel and hurt people. Thus, you see my reaction.
Sky, for all the pain and suffering I endured (and some I still do) via TWI, I also did receive good as well. Would there have been an Abigail? Most likely, yes. I had warnings, plenty of them - from my mom, from my brother, from a minster of a church. But I also had a huge need and for a time, TWI filled that need. I paid a high price for it, do doubt, but I am still alive, I am still here. Even the pain - it didn't kill me, it just made me stronger. :)
And Oakspear? Are you kidding? Have you talked to him?? I haven't in a while, though there was a time when we talked quite a bit. Ask him how he is! And don't worry about him so much!! Perhaps it is just God's time to find him. :)
But I get your heart in this, your concern for people is beautiful. But words that sound harsh often have the opposite effect of that which we are seeking.
Cynic: I'm about six feet so thats about average height which I dont think would make me a little fellow. Unless of course, I lived in Somalia where they are really tall. :)
Garth: I appreciate your post and note the points. I read some of the historical stuff. Still, there are others who say that record isnt right. I thought to bring that into the discussion would be an extra large load. I'm more intrigued by how the doctrine is played out today in actual practice. It is, at least with those they call hyper Calvinists an actual practice. After reading some of the Micheal Servetus' stuff, something tell me your right, maybe he was the "elect" and he didnt need the uncondital component to get it going. :)
Bramble: see above post
u said: Where common sense and an understanding for the need to check those powers seems to abide, I do think many churches are fine places to go for spiritual fulfillment, but sometimes some of their beliefs cause all manner of strife.
I 100 percent agree. What I appreciate about Abigail so much, is that if your saying stuff she puts the "common sense litmus test" to what your saying. That type of perspective, I think, keeps us healthy and I very much agree.
With respect to your last paragraph about rules and stuff in churches to keep destruction from happening, yeah, thats where its suppose to take us. The Calvinist methodology however is far different. You could have in a Calvinstic church those that practice Calvinism and those that practice the bible from a different view. Ie (Two different groups operating under different principles, one Calvinistic one not.) My view is that the Calvinistic practioners way of thinking is destructive.
Abigail:
you said: But words that sound harsh often have the opposite effect of that which we are seeking.
My problem (if its mine) is that I don't know how to say things that I'm thinking without being direct. When I try to do that Abigail, I end up bieng to verbose and with excessives of adjectives that water down the point. Look at it from the point of how politicans engage arguement. I think some times that the word "diplomatic" its just a word for people who are long winded. Long winded arguements are the kind that cause exederin headaches ( I think)
If you're going to bother with history, you'll need to read a number of well-founded books documenting the era. Calvin's behavior needs to be contextualized properly. While I think some of Garth's criticisms are justified (or at the least, arguable), some of the, uh, excess ventilation (aka: huffing and puffing) amounts to criticising the era. It's a bit like pointing the long bony finger at Abraham as the worst profligate of history because he had children by several women, when it was the common and accepted practice of the day.
From the historical POV you have a point (TO a point) as many other churches/religions took part in like activities, both Catholic and Protestant.
However, from a moral/ethical standpoint as regards the incident, particularly from the standpoint of absolute morality (well at least as far as the kind of moral standard that staunchly religious people claim should be applied, with the same kind of 'excess ventilation' (aka: huffing and puffing) that you attribute to me), your argument falls flat. Or how does your argument fare from a biblical and doctrinal standpoint, hmmm?
Ie., such abusive and murderous persecution of heretics/blasphemers/and other supposed 'polemic low life' (at least, as far as your garden variety Calvinist would claim that unbelievers are) is morally and ethically, to put it bluntly, ... wrong. ... Period. ... End of story. ... Regardless of any biblical verses one would want to pull out to justify said activities.
You want to talk about huffing and puffing? Ok. Here's something stated by Calvin said, in his own words regarding the Servetus incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.
(In his "Defense of the Orthodox Trinity Against the Errors of Michael Servetus")
Let me ask you something. How would you spiritually/biblically render such statements, and the mentality behind them, hmmm? (What if it were VPW and Der Veg endorsing similar views as regards his religious opponents?) Biblical? In accordance with what Jesus taught?
One thing you'll want to keep in mind is that this is in regards to one of the pillars of the Reformation we're talking about here, and yes it does tie in in relation to his doctrine (ie., Calvinism) as he seriously believed that the doctrine behind this behavior was according to the Word of God. And he supposedly wanted to get Christianity back to (what he saw) the Scripture themselves, much like the claims of Martin Luther and many other Protestant leaders, contrary to what they saw as a deviation of the Catholic Church away from them. ... Well OK, my question here is: Is this kind of behavior that is according to the biblical standards that Calvin was supposedly so strongly for? Was this the biblical way to treat those who taught 'heresy'? Calvin seemed to think so, and he taught accordingly.
This isn't some miniscule variance of biblical interpretation we're talking about here. And this is also regarding a highly regarded man and his doctrine, and as far as I'm concerned, this practice bled (profusely I might add) into his dogma. Hell, his (and some of his most ardent apologists, including someone I'm familiar with) attitudes towards the aforementioned heretics often show a good deal of hostility and condescending attitude.
A side note: Isn't one of the arguments of the anti-cult people use in determining a 'cult' is that they are not tolerant of differing points-of-view, especially when their Leader is openly questioned by dissidents? <_<
I just thought of something that I'd like to add here, and this is in reference to those who depend on the weak (and morally bankrupt) defense of 'historical context' as an excuse for the execution of heretics back during those days.
It's as though the argument is given that the ones doing the executing didn't really know any better, or couldn't figure out what was wrong in their actions to counter heretical beliefs and the propagation of said beliefs. Or as though they had no moral choice but to keep quiet while such executions took place. (Unlikely tho')
If you take a overall look through the history generally during, and following Servetus' execution, you'll find more and more people, of all religious stripes, rethinking and challenging this practice. Notice I said 're-thinking', as I seriously doubt that the the concept of the immorality of killing heretics is something that was considered a totally new idea and one that was never thought about before. Sorry; no sale. And as a result of this 'movement' as it were, springing up during the Renaissance period, history gives way to the period of the Enlightenment, science, representative forms of government, ... and the eventual abolishment of heresy being considered a capital crime, ... or any form of crime.
So since there were people realizing this during those days (if not in the ages before), and since Calvin himself was often referred to, and usually by his defenders, as brilliant and scholarly, .....
..... you mean to tell me that he couldn't figure this out for himself as well?
Garth, I think it is even simpler than that. To defend the execution of religious "heretics" is, IMO akin to saying the fundamental Muslem's who use their religion as an excuse the blow up buildings simply don't know any better. Both groups are killing innocent people and justifying it based on religious doctrine, no?
On the other side of the coin, it would seem the history of many religions is filled with bloodshed in the name of "God". A very very sad thing, IMO.
Can you believe that your religion is the one right true and only way for all mankind--and still live in harmony or peacefulness with those that don't agree with you, that reject your religion and follow their own?
It is interesting, Garth, that the thoughts of those who have no interest in the devine, that they seem to cite historical things to reference there view. (For example, the Christian Crusades are commonly cited by athiests) I talked to a Vietnamese guy just this week, and he cited the same, not because he is an atheist, but to reference the fact he is not very interested in God.
By the way Garth, I thank you for your post. I think you are right that the behaviour around any individual who has certain beliefs must be examined.
Abigail asked an interesting question at the beginning of this post and that is what is a cult? It is an important question.
Garth added the following statement:
A side note: Isn't one of the arguments of the anti-cult people use in determining a 'cult' is that they are not tolerant of differing points-of-view, especially when their Leader is openly questioned by dissidents?
Doesn't this mean that a cult would be something where those that have the doctrine refuse to be taught or learn something new? (Taught: I dont mean condescendingly from the other party, just simple exchange of information. They will not acccept simple fact, thus won't be taught.) Garth you added "not tolerant" doesn't this mean wont be taught? Wether science or theology shouldnt we always grow in knowledge? Don't cults have a black box ideology thats closed off to others? Even the apostle Paul recognized the fact he could learn from others.
It would seem to me that cults typically encompass "black box" doctrines. They are fixed. No new reference points are allowed. Isn't there an "increasing in the knowledge of God" concept that is missing?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
35
21
32
Popular Days
Aug 24
31
Aug 22
23
Aug 21
23
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 74 posts
Abigail 35 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Watered Garden 32 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2007
31 posts
Aug 22 2007
23 posts
Aug 21 2007
23 posts
Mar 17 2009
14 posts
Popular Posts
GarthP2000
And Calvin and his mindset was the 'Honey Wagon'.
Mark Clarke
God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allo
Cynic
My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in s
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
One final thought on Calvinism:
Calvinists love to quote this passage: John 6:44 which says " No man can come to me, except the father which has sent me draw him...." they use this scripture to float their theory of Unconditional Election.
in doing so they forget the other "draw me" features of the Father which say: John 12:32 " If I be lifted up from the earth will draw all 'men' (italics) unto me" In doing so they run completely contrary to the wisdom of God features of righteousness and the salvation passages of Romans 10:6-10. What they do is pull Christ down.
I was looking for Calvinist websites to see if I could find posters of there faith, the ones I found have members and they hardly ever post. Thats because they have there black box and dont have any thing new to talk about. It's not a living way, its a dead faith they have.
Yep Im sure its a cult.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Having a model which explains the workings of an organization is helpful to explain its workings. A long time ago I equated TWI to the Frankenstein Model, in order to be “nice” and “fair” I will use a little more tactful analogy, which describes the workings of Calvinism.
Like all good cults, they even have there acronyms. Calvinism incorporates concepts like
savinggrace and irresistablegrace and Sovereignty features. Thus, they become symbolic of the Calvinistic world where living bible principals become reduced to objects. (The word acronyms may be a bit of a stretch, but I have no other word to describe something that is an entirely new concept)
Here’s a model ( If anyone is still interested on how the Calvinistic Cult works:)
The entire ideology essentially functions like a big semi-trailor truck. It’s the pre-destination or UnconditionlelectionSemiTruck. Inside the truck, it comes complete with the Calvinistic savinggracemobile. The Calvinistic savinggracemobile has a trailor attached to it called the Calvinistic irresistablegracetrailor. Now, because your Totally Depraved or Totally Unable; the UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck comes around the corner, to take care of all your problems. It does so by the following action: The Savinggracemobile comes off the UCSemiTruck. You don’t even make up your own (will) to get in and go for the ride. This is because your will is so degraded by the Cult model, you don’t even have much of one left. Thus, the savinggracemobile, because of it’s part of the UCSemiTruck ideology does it for you because your will is the T in Tulip its Totally Unable. So what the Savinggracemobile does, is run you over, and throw you on the mobile for the ride. The Calvinistic irresistablegrace trailor is also self automating. Since your will is so degraded when the trailor appears? Its simply irresistable. The actual model is complete with lots of levers and buttons and stuff. Levers like operating grace and non-operating grace, that Calvin discussed and knew what they where; based on the writings of other philosophers. There has to be a gaymobile attached somewhere here to the savinggracemobile, because God gives people over to things like that who have ideologies that are heresy driven. The UnconditionalelectionSemiTruck, works perfectly because its all based on Sovereignty features all of which are already predetermined. It’s a self-containing ideological black box.
I found a website which is complete with many authors who explain what is wrong with Calvinism.
http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/q.../calvinism.html
Some of the authors are well known. Noteworthy is the fact, the Calvinistic model has been under assault from others for years. The views there seem to be pretty good stuff.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sky, I am curious as to why you have such a beef with these people? Surely not all who follow Calvin think they can just go out and do horrible things?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
u said:
Sky, I am curious as to why you have such a beef with these people? Surely not all who follow Calvin think they can just go out and do horrible things?
I think its horrible stuff Abigail I really do. The analogy is if VPW was the Kansas City Royals of Major league cults ( A team that hasnt done well in years) these guys are the New York Yankess of Cults.
Having said that, I think I will let it go with my model, because you mentioned it. If someone wants me to defend it, I dont think I need to because I think the facts are self-expanatory. So this is it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I guess I thought modern Calvinists were Presbyterians...and many of them apple pick their doctrines to suit their own consciences, like most other denomination people seem free to do.
They are not like the Way, be like minded or be gone( or lie about what you really believe and spout the accepted words).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
For some reason this UnconditionlelectionSemiTruck reminds me of the song, "The Mystery Train". Anybody remember that, The Mystery train down through the ages it rolled... ? Can't remember the rest of the words...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Thanks Bramble, I think you said well what I was thinking but couldn't figure out how to say. I think most groups/theologies have some right and some wrong. Any doctrine taken to an extreme can be dangerous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
wrdsandwrks thk lol
Abigail:
u said:
I guess I thought modern Calvinists were Presbyterians...and many of them apple pick their doctrines to suit their own consciences, like most other denomination people seem free to do.
Some of this may be true. I think I said early on in the post that Most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all Presbyterians are Calvinists. This means 2 things: (There may be some Presbyterians churches that have nothing to do with Calvinism and you may have Calvinistic churches unrelated to the Presbyterians at all.) Therefore I only used the doctinal ideology in reference to Calvinists. In addition, there may be some bible believing Presbyterians. :)
I need your comment on one thing Abigail. When I was 19 they were having a big Way International symposium downtown Minneapolis. My Lutheran freind and I thought about going. I thought, maybe I should run up to the stage and warn them. If I would have done that would there been an Abigail in the crowd I could have pulled out? I can't get Oaksphere out of my head. 20 years later he's an athiest? If the people over at TWI had any sense of conscience, they would sell the farm, come out and find people like Oaksphere and pay him his due. He and others deserve it. Isnt a person who goes into a Christian ministry suppose to come out with Christ? His story , for me, it never goes away. Its hurts me to see a man like that. I read Calvin, Abgail, and I process this stuff. Its like a gigantic storm cloud moving in to discount the gospel and hurt people. Thus, you see my reaction.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
There are a wide variety of beliefs here at GSC, from TWI /Pfal to athiest and many stops both Christian and non Christian in between.
I was involved in a Presbyterian Church for over a year after our TWi exit...I saw nothing cult like or controling/demanding about it. They were involved in many good works in the community. Thinking was encouraged.
The pastors /elders etc never once demanded to see my sock drawer or monthly budget. I saw them as a vast improvement over the TWI that I knew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble: In fact the contraption is so slick, you may not see any controlling or demanding features at all. It simply depends on who is running the levers on the contraption. It works to circumvent the protocol of Ephesians 5:5 and others which talk about those three things (That’s its major component and what it does today). The contraption does have control and demanding features built into it however. The contraption is so sophisticated that Calvanist’s haven’t even worked all the levers. (I pointed that out a little in the model) They don’t even know themselves what a machine it is and all the stuff it can do. VPW he was almost a bush leaguer compared this guy. Here’s the reason why: I think VPW never wanted to get too big. He wanted to keep the size at a manageable level for himself. (Still he sent people out working to keep them busy and in the org.) Here’s the proof: VPW taught off the wall things like the 4 crucified and other stuff, to insult mainstream and keep the organizational numbers down for control. In addition, the off the wall VPW stuff was a lever in itself, withwhich, people could NOT just move to a similar organization because they were too different. If VPW didnt do it this way he didnt have enough levers to control the organization. See,with VPW, the control feature on his contraption, was stuff mainstream dispised him for, THEREFORE YOU NEEDED VPW. This guy didn’t do that, because he wanted to run the entire show. Ie(Somebody called him the Pope of Geneva)
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I’m unsure when I’ll now have time for significant posting between some conditioning and coursework requirements, but my restraint feature is now turned off with respect to this little fellow.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
SKy4it, to be honest, I kind of view Bible Christianity as a whole as having dangerous contraptions built into it, with authority structures and lacks of checks on the powers of authorities in church settings being one-- which being ex twi, I've seen in ugly action.
Where common sense and an understanding for the need to check those powers seems to abide, I do think many churches are fine places to go for spiritual fulfillment, but sometimes some of their beliefs cause all manner of strife.
Those books of order, full of rules, practices, structure etc that so many denominations like Presbyterian have, are those churches attempts to keep their churches from becoming destructive, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble:
Bramble & others :
A couple other things might be helpful, which I did not explain.
Calvinism has its strongest foothold in the Presbyterian Church. Still, there may be Presbyterian
preachers, who don’t preach the stuff. It’s not at all an only Presbyterian problem. In fact, there may well be Lutherans who are practioners and other denominations who have(and practice) the stuff. It’s INDIVIDUALLY specific, both with its preachers and those that practice it. Undoubtably there are many places where Calvinist books are in the church and haven’t been dusted off for 30 years or more.
With respect to you, I would estimate 1 in 10 people or families attending a church, are window shopping people. (I do that too) You wouldn’t see the results of Calvinism, unless you were deeply involved with those that practice it. Here is the other thing. There are people who go to these churches, (you know the ones who are disinterested and there attendance is marginal) who go to these places for years, and are not involved in the practice of it. To them, its boring, because they are not involved with the participants. They are the innocent bystanders. Hope that’s helpful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
Uh ohh! Now ya done it; you got Cynic MAD (Clue #1: He called you a 'little fellow' :ph34r: ;) ). Be prepared to endure a maelstrom of large and very complex words and phrases, coupled with his World Famous Condescending & Malevolent Attitude, as he defends John Calvin's and his doctrine's 'honour'.
If you really want to find out more about what made John Calvin tick, here's a google search on 'Micheal Servetus', and you'll learn more about what/where Calvin's dogma was coming from, particularly in respect to how to deal with heretics, blasphemers, and other people who had the mitigated gaul to openly differ from his 'orthodoxy'. ... And believe you me, Servetus wasn't the only one who was affected by this kind of malevolence. Not by a long shot.
(Abi, this might serve to help illustrate why some of us anti-Calvinists hold the views we do about this topic, not only about the man's doctrine, but about the man himself. ... Ie., Calvin _definitely_ had a control problem. To put it mildly.
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sky, for all the pain and suffering I endured (and some I still do) via TWI, I also did receive good as well. Would there have been an Abigail? Most likely, yes. I had warnings, plenty of them - from my mom, from my brother, from a minster of a church. But I also had a huge need and for a time, TWI filled that need. I paid a high price for it, do doubt, but I am still alive, I am still here. Even the pain - it didn't kill me, it just made me stronger. :)
And Oakspear? Are you kidding? Have you talked to him?? I haven't in a while, though there was a time when we talked quite a bit. Ask him how he is! And don't worry about him so much!! Perhaps it is just God's time to find him. :)
But I get your heart in this, your concern for people is beautiful. But words that sound harsh often have the opposite effect of that which we are seeking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth, Abigail, Cynic & Bramble:
Cynic: I'm about six feet so thats about average height which I dont think would make me a little fellow. Unless of course, I lived in Somalia where they are really tall. :)
Garth: I appreciate your post and note the points. I read some of the historical stuff. Still, there are others who say that record isnt right. I thought to bring that into the discussion would be an extra large load. I'm more intrigued by how the doctrine is played out today in actual practice. It is, at least with those they call hyper Calvinists an actual practice. After reading some of the Micheal Servetus' stuff, something tell me your right, maybe he was the "elect" and he didnt need the uncondital component to get it going. :)
Bramble: see above post
u said: Where common sense and an understanding for the need to check those powers seems to abide, I do think many churches are fine places to go for spiritual fulfillment, but sometimes some of their beliefs cause all manner of strife.
I 100 percent agree. What I appreciate about Abigail so much, is that if your saying stuff she puts the "common sense litmus test" to what your saying. That type of perspective, I think, keeps us healthy and I very much agree.
With respect to your last paragraph about rules and stuff in churches to keep destruction from happening, yeah, thats where its suppose to take us. The Calvinist methodology however is far different. You could have in a Calvinstic church those that practice Calvinism and those that practice the bible from a different view. Ie (Two different groups operating under different principles, one Calvinistic one not.) My view is that the Calvinistic practioners way of thinking is destructive.
Abigail:
you said: But words that sound harsh often have the opposite effect of that which we are seeking.
My problem (if its mine) is that I don't know how to say things that I'm thinking without being direct. When I try to do that Abigail, I end up bieng to verbose and with excessives of adjectives that water down the point. Look at it from the point of how politicans engage arguement. I think some times that the word "diplomatic" its just a word for people who are long winded. Long winded arguements are the kind that cause exederin headaches ( I think)
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
If you're going to bother with history, you'll need to read a number of well-founded books documenting the era. Calvin's behavior needs to be contextualized properly. While I think some of Garth's criticisms are justified (or at the least, arguable), some of the, uh, excess ventilation (aka: huffing and puffing) amounts to criticising the era. It's a bit like pointing the long bony finger at Abraham as the worst profligate of history because he had children by several women, when it was the common and accepted practice of the day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan,
From the historical POV you have a point (TO a point) as many other churches/religions took part in like activities, both Catholic and Protestant.
However, from a moral/ethical standpoint as regards the incident, particularly from the standpoint of absolute morality (well at least as far as the kind of moral standard that staunchly religious people claim should be applied, with the same kind of 'excess ventilation' (aka: huffing and puffing) that you attribute to me), your argument falls flat. Or how does your argument fare from a biblical and doctrinal standpoint, hmmm?
Ie., such abusive and murderous persecution of heretics/blasphemers/and other supposed 'polemic low life' (at least, as far as your garden variety Calvinist would claim that unbelievers are) is morally and ethically, to put it bluntly, ... wrong. ... Period. ... End of story. ... Regardless of any biblical verses one would want to pull out to justify said activities.
You want to talk about huffing and puffing? Ok. Here's something stated by Calvin said, in his own words regarding the Servetus incident:
(In his "Defense of the Orthodox Trinity Against the Errors of Michael Servetus")
Let me ask you something. How would you spiritually/biblically render such statements, and the mentality behind them, hmmm? (What if it were VPW and Der Veg endorsing similar views as regards his religious opponents?) Biblical? In accordance with what Jesus taught?
One thing you'll want to keep in mind is that this is in regards to one of the pillars of the Reformation we're talking about here, and yes it does tie in in relation to his doctrine (ie., Calvinism) as he seriously believed that the doctrine behind this behavior was according to the Word of God. And he supposedly wanted to get Christianity back to (what he saw) the Scripture themselves, much like the claims of Martin Luther and many other Protestant leaders, contrary to what they saw as a deviation of the Catholic Church away from them. ... Well OK, my question here is: Is this kind of behavior that is according to the biblical standards that Calvin was supposedly so strongly for? Was this the biblical way to treat those who taught 'heresy'? Calvin seemed to think so, and he taught accordingly.
This isn't some miniscule variance of biblical interpretation we're talking about here. And this is also regarding a highly regarded man and his doctrine, and as far as I'm concerned, this practice bled (profusely I might add) into his dogma. Hell, his (and some of his most ardent apologists, including someone I'm familiar with) attitudes towards the aforementioned heretics often show a good deal of hostility and condescending attitude.
A side note: Isn't one of the arguments of the anti-cult people use in determining a 'cult' is that they are not tolerant of differing points-of-view, especially when their Leader is openly questioned by dissidents? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I just thought of something that I'd like to add here, and this is in reference to those who depend on the weak (and morally bankrupt) defense of 'historical context' as an excuse for the execution of heretics back during those days.
It's as though the argument is given that the ones doing the executing didn't really know any better, or couldn't figure out what was wrong in their actions to counter heretical beliefs and the propagation of said beliefs. Or as though they had no moral choice but to keep quiet while such executions took place. (Unlikely tho')
If you take a overall look through the history generally during, and following Servetus' execution, you'll find more and more people, of all religious stripes, rethinking and challenging this practice. Notice I said 're-thinking', as I seriously doubt that the the concept of the immorality of killing heretics is something that was considered a totally new idea and one that was never thought about before. Sorry; no sale. And as a result of this 'movement' as it were, springing up during the Renaissance period, history gives way to the period of the Enlightenment, science, representative forms of government, ... and the eventual abolishment of heresy being considered a capital crime, ... or any form of crime.
So since there were people realizing this during those days (if not in the ages before), and since Calvin himself was often referred to, and usually by his defenders, as brilliant and scholarly, .....
..... you mean to tell me that he couldn't figure this out for himself as well?
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Garth, I think it is even simpler than that. To defend the execution of religious "heretics" is, IMO akin to saying the fundamental Muslem's who use their religion as an excuse the blow up buildings simply don't know any better. Both groups are killing innocent people and justifying it based on religious doctrine, no?
On the other side of the coin, it would seem the history of many religions is filled with bloodshed in the name of "God". A very very sad thing, IMO.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Can you believe that your religion is the one right true and only way for all mankind--and still live in harmony or peacefulness with those that don't agree with you, that reject your religion and follow their own?
I read a bumper sticker that seems to fit here:
When Jesus said "Love you enemies",
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean, "Kill them."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
LOL - that is beautiful, Bramble!! It really sums it up and says it all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
It is interesting, Garth, that the thoughts of those who have no interest in the devine, that they seem to cite historical things to reference there view. (For example, the Christian Crusades are commonly cited by athiests) I talked to a Vietnamese guy just this week, and he cited the same, not because he is an atheist, but to reference the fact he is not very interested in God.
By the way Garth, I thank you for your post. I think you are right that the behaviour around any individual who has certain beliefs must be examined.
Abigail asked an interesting question at the beginning of this post and that is what is a cult? It is an important question.
Garth added the following statement:
A side note: Isn't one of the arguments of the anti-cult people use in determining a 'cult' is that they are not tolerant of differing points-of-view, especially when their Leader is openly questioned by dissidents?
Doesn't this mean that a cult would be something where those that have the doctrine refuse to be taught or learn something new? (Taught: I dont mean condescendingly from the other party, just simple exchange of information. They will not acccept simple fact, thus won't be taught.) Garth you added "not tolerant" doesn't this mean wont be taught? Wether science or theology shouldnt we always grow in knowledge? Don't cults have a black box ideology thats closed off to others? Even the apostle Paul recognized the fact he could learn from others.
It would seem to me that cults typically encompass "black box" doctrines. They are fixed. No new reference points are allowed. Isn't there an "increasing in the knowledge of God" concept that is missing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.