The Calvinist God is Evil!



There are things in this video I don't agree with, and certainly neither will Calvinists. But there are a couple of interviews in it that are instructive of the kind of God Calvinists worship. [The script is hard to read so I've posted it below, sorry about the language].

Script of the video:

Have you ever heard of this brand of Christians?

You haven't? Well let me briefly summerize the difference between Calvinism and arminianism...

Calvinists believe in so called predestination coupled with limited atonement
This means that they believe that Jesus didn't die for everyone but only for specific people whom God choose before he created them. And only those people are saved, the rest will go to hell

So basically it comes down to this:
God created a whole bunch of people who are just forever fucked

Yup a fucking cosmic lottery
If you don't have the right number, well that is just too fucking bad
How lovely right?

The calvinist's view is that mankind does have free will, but that free will shall always lead people to hell

Because sinning is just so fucking great right?

So God basically just violated some people's free will so that they would choose to obey him. That way some of the people can go to heaven.

Let me introduce you to some famous calvinists: (picture of the westboro baptist church)

You know how most christians say that God is love and such
Well at least the calvinists are honest to admit that their God is a God of hate... and a little tiny bit of love on the side

(video)

Can somebody please kick this guy's teeth in?

Now calvinists will say that God is not obliged to save everybody, since we all deserve to go to hell. It is actually very merciful for him to save at least some.
Now what kind of fucked up logic is that? Because according to calvinists it is in our very nature to go against God. The unsaved people simply CANNOT do anything else but sinning.

This is the important part; we CANNOT choose anything else but sin. It is in our nature to sin, it is impossible for us to either choose to live a sinfree live or to choose to accept God's salvation. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE

So God is going to torture his creatures forever for doing what comes naturally
with no way out...

But calvinists will say that God doesn't make people sin, they do it because they want to (because they cannot want to do anything else by nature)

But if God created our nature, it is HIS fault, not ours.
Of course they have a pathetic answer to this as well.

(video)

Okay so God did not fuck us over, but adam did.

So send adam to hell you fucking idiot!

It is impossible for a calvinist to get around the fact that God simply created most people for destruction, even though they are not to blame and have no way out.

If God created evil (or let evil be created by adam, whatever... that is the same thing) then God is infinitely evil for doing so

And everbody who believes, accepts and follows this God is therefore also infinitely evil

And you can see to what kind of horrible people calvinism leads to.

The weirdest thing is that calvinists actually DO evangelize, because the bible commands them to. However, even if they wouldn't the exact same amount of people would go to heaven

So why don't you just go around shooting people in the face? That would work a lot faster right?

Why would anybody's life matter? They are already fucked or "blessed"

Also how are the unelect supposed to live? Their lives are completely worthless since eternal hell is unavoidable for them.

So why shouldn't I just torture as much calvinists as possible in my life?

It doesn't matter right? After all, if I am elect I will go to heaven anyway even if I would live a life of torture and murder.

And if I am unelect, so what? I was simply already fucked from the start. Can't make it any worse right?

Calvinists are simply the sickest psychotic people on the planet and don't deserve any respect whatsoever. They don't give a crap about people so neither should we care about them.

I cannot possibly conceive of a God who is more evil than the God of calvinism. That is not meant as an insult, I honestly cannot conceive of any possible God which would be more evil.

Even a God who would send everybody to hell would not be more evil because at least he would treat everybody equally. I mean if a judge would randomly let murderers go you wouldn't call him merciful or good right?

The only two words which apply to calvinism are: Infinite Evil

54 comments:

John W. Loftus said...

The point should be seen easily enough if the Calvinist was not blind as a bat due to his beliefs. Ask them if Adam could have done differently if he had wanted to; could Adam have desired to do differently if he wanted to; and could Adam have believed differently if he had wanted to. The answer a Calvinist would give is an emphatic NO, NO, NO. Adam could not have done, desired, or believed differently if he wanted to, and neither can we. That's right, neither can we!

That should end the discussion. Such a God is evil, period. He hates people for no reason (What would that reason be?) He's a God of hate and unworthy of worship or praise. He's like a thug, a kingpin of the Mafia, who places a gun to our heads and fires it off on some and not on others for no apparent reason. And to think, Calvinists claim God is the standard of reason and goodness!? That's just bunk! What reason is there for his choices? What kind of goodness is this?

Anthony said...

John, you truly do hate Calvinism don't you. I think you hate it as much as I hated Arminianism when I was a Christian. I made no bones that I thought Arminianism was a false gospel and that Arminians were lost. In fact I would go even further than that and say that Calvinists who agreed that Arminians were true believers and believed the gospel were themselves lost as well. Of course I thought I was glorifying God and his work. But the reality is that both Calvinism and Arminianism are bunk.

Infralapsarian Calvinists are illogical believing that God both had a benevolent love for all and a specific love for the elect. Supralapsarian Calvinists are more logical in limiting God's love and Christ's work to only the elect, but they in turn have a monster for a God. You ask, "what kind of goodness is this?" I say: none.

openlyatheist said...

I like the first guy. He’s kind of the anti-Stephen Colbert.

I wonder about who posted this video. (Looks.) Ah, it’s a young atheist. That will be enough for Christians to dismiss him. Calvinists specifically are already inoculated against reason, so what will they care?

It does lead to some interesting anti-Calvinist videos from Christians. Check out this guy’s
Spiritual Diseases: CALVINISM - 1 of 3.

He says he doesn't have much to say about Calvinism, then posts a 3 part video. Haw!

Take a drink every time he says 'amen.'

He says of Calvinism, “It’s an incredibly blind, backwards, contradictory system... It is antagonistic to wisdom, reason, and Biblical Truth!” He’s got beard and over 300 postings, so he must be right. I’m sure all the Calvinists who watch it will be turned from their Calvinistic heresy immediately.

Heather said...

Not on topic...however, what happened to Thomas and his posts??

Ray said...

John,

I'm not a Calvinist but the Calvinists that I've read believe that the reason you don't want to is because you don't have the desire to. If you have the desire you will want to.

If Adam and Eve didn't want to it's because they didn't have the desire. God removed His hand of grace and then Adam and Eve wanted to eat of the fruit. They then had the desire to.

John W. Loftus said...

Heather, at Thomas' request I gave him some critical feedback about his last post, and rather than defend it he took leave of this blog by deleting his posts and his name from the staff. I wish him well.

John W. Loftus said...

Ray, according to the divine decree I could not desire to do differently. No one can. God decreees all of the murders and rapes in this world. These killers and rapists could not do differently. They could not desire to do differently. This means I could not believe other than I do, and as such this God decrees me to hell. I was created for hell. There is no way I could end up in heaven at all! No chance at all.

KJ said...

I find Calvinism fairly logically consistent, at least internally (although many Calvinists want both a deterministic and free-will universe, which is paradoxical). It takes the willy-nilly God of the Bible seriously enough to accept he's not really such a good guy (unless you use a twisted definition of good, which of course, Calvinists do).

It also makes it so much easier to reject God altogether, since even if God did exist, he's obviously not an omnibeneficent God worth worship, but sadistic monster who creates humans simply to torture them eternally.

The few Calvinists I can tolerate, have combined their predestination beliefs with universalism - basically saying that God can, and will, save everyone. The worst kind of heresy, naturally.. although I've never understood why. Guess we hate to think that the "thems" (vs the "usses") also get to be saved.. we can't have that!

Robert said...

Hey, give the Calvinists credit! They've at least solved the problem of evil for Christians:

There is evil because God wills it.

Voila! Problem solved.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

John,

Although in your opinion my system of belief may be equally as flawed, at the risk of sounding heretical, and being anathematized(sp)...I believe you're right on this one...The rest of what I think is HERE

The strictest monergist believes that some are born to be lost NO MATTER what they do. Dr. Calvin said and taught that himself. I think that's unconscionable.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Thanks.

brian_g said...

I think this is another example of why I like talking to atheist. The first reason is an atheist will never tell me I'm going to hell for being Catholic – the lunatic asylum maybe, but not hell. The second reason is that you don't like the Calvinist doctrine either. This is a strong contention between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics are accused of trying to earn our salvation. This is incorrect. Just look at the doctrine of justification at the council of Trent. The Catholic view is that we are saved through God's grace, but we must freely co-operate with that grace. Because of this emphasis on free will it is thought that we are taking glory from God and giving it to ourselves. The Calvinist view says that God does everything, we do nothing. In that way they think their giving all the glory to God and being very humble. We see salvation as a free gift from God, but just like any free gift we have to be open to accepting it. If we reject it, God allows us to reject it.

Furthermore, we don't see God as damning people to hell without cause, as the atheist understand it. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, not just those who were born at a certain place in time. This is not the view of particularly liberal theologians, but those well regarded for their orthodoxy. Here is an example from Pope John Paul II in Redemptoris missio:

10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.
For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."


I'd like to know how the atheist would respond to this. They keep saying that the Christian God unfairly damns people to hell who have no opportunity to learn about Jesus or Christianity. Here's the leader of the largest Christian church in the world who says otherwise.

This reminds me of a quote in Vox Day's book, "She was an atheist, but she was a Lutheran atheist, so she knew exactly what God she didn't believe in." -- Garrison Keillor, "Wobegon Boy" So if I may ask are you guys Calvinist atheists, or Catholic atheists?



John, btw, I saw your book in my local library. I flipped through it and it looks more sophisticated then I had thought. I'll probably give it a read in the near future. (I got some books through inter-library loan that I have to finish first.)

Jim T. said...

I was reading about the Westboro Baptist Church last night, and it struck me that they are what I envision Calvinism to be when taken to its logical conclusions. I'm sure that many Calvinists would disagree with that, because the WBC approach no doubt makes them uncomfortable. While that approach may be unsavory, the underlying reasoning is Calvinism taken all the way, at least to my way of seeing things. If you strip away the unbounded and extreme homophobia of the WBC, you're left with the core Calvinist logic and their view of God and his dealings with his creation.

It feels odd to say this, but in a queer way the WBC are somehow refreshing, in that they at least fully live out and proclaim their beliefs and convictions. I often wonder why Calvinists don't cheerfully proclaim their beliefs more. Why don't they fully embrace their doctrines, take it all the way, and be proud of it? I also wonder if they were more upfront about their doctrines if they would grow or shrink as a worldview.

Looking at the WBC website, I was surprised too see fully reasoned arguments for every belief and action. Their FAQ page illustrates this: http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html. The very first FAQ mentions TULIP.

I found this video to be rather illuminating: Fred Phelps' scary granddaughters - www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gX-vQ5sMOw

What do others think of this?

- Jim

BobCMU76 said...

KJ -- I pretty much consider myself one such of those you speak. I take I Tim 4:10 as something of a core text and move on from there.

brian_g, I've never met a humble Calvinist, even in the mirror. I'd like to be Brother Lawrence, but have a long way to go.

I thought I'd share a dream that once had me waking in night sweats...

A guy is holding a gun at me. Says it's his right to shoot me, and he will.

I ask what reason he has.

HE says he doesn't need a reason, he has a right. But he has reason enough. I can guees what they might be, but it won't do me any good to.

I ask if this is extortion, if something I could do could keep me from being shot. And he said, no, not a thing.

Assessing my situation, I say I can't stop you. Go ahead and shoot. Your ability to do it gives you the right.

And he puts his gun down.

That's a real dream, and a Calvinist allegory.

lee said...

Calvinism was my last hope of hanging onto faith. At least God was consistent in that He was sovereign over His creation. The God of Arminianism was impotent. I can't tell you at the number of times I have heard Arminian Preachers say, "God wants to save you today if you will let Him, won't you let Him? I even had a A.G. pastor once tell me that if I didn't do something, God COULDN"T do something." IMPOTENT! But, with Calvinism I ran into the problem that an Omnipotent, Omniscient Omnipresent God knew that Adam would fall before the fall. He knew that all of creation would be plunged in death and would be incapable of affecting their own salvation unless God did something first. Whether you are Arminian or Calvinist ultimately makes no difference since all who have a desire to come to christ come to christ. Did the desire come from god or free will is completely irrelevant to who comes.

Billions have never heard the gospel, so if you are an Arminian, from the beginning, God knew these poor souls would be lost having never had an opportunity to be saved.

If you are Calvinist, God chooses some and "passes over" others which is the euphemistic way of saying god chooses some and damns others. God chose Adam, knew he would fail, and as a result man would be born with a sinful nature, and then be punished because man was acting in accordance with the very same nature he was given from birth. Punished for all eternity. And this is just because god is just? This was my personal tipping point. The day I realized that if god did exist he was not worthy of my affection and worship.


In the end the only difference between calvinist and Arminian is how you answer this question: in the final analysis, what is ultimately the determining factor upon which a persons salvation ultimately depends? Prevenient Grace or Irresistible Grace? Who, is ultimately saved is in the end no different.

Arminians who think otherwise are delusional.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi John,

Amazing rhetoric but unconvincing.

Just 1 question,

Is it evil to destroy a house that you built?

Regards, Rev Phil.

BobCMU76 said...

Holy Fountainhead, Batman!

Whether ownership is in absolute or in trust is an issue at the core of America's polity, 5th Amendment and all that. Personally, I think an owner has an obligation to the community, especially to the extent his property creates a public obligation to him.

But the issue here is not of ownership rights but of creator rights. Roark did not own the buildings he bombed. He had to employ some pretty wild mental gymnastics to assert the right to dastroy, for the very reason God would destroy us.... corruption of His pure design.

WriteagainstRacism said...

Rev. Phil,

I don't pretend to be as educated theologically as most who post here, but I want to take a shot at your question:

"Is it evil to destroy a house that you built?"

Are you equating houses with human beings? Do houses have hopes, fears, loves, joy? Sorrow? Feelings of inadequacy and emptiness? Unfulfillable desires?

I don't think it's a fair question. If you're saying that God has the right to destroy us because he created us, then I cannot gainsay you. If it's true, then I have no recourse and am slated for eternal torture and destruction, simply because I was born. Or if I am not, then countless other poor souls are.

Charlie said...

My Dying Bride! (One of my favorite bands.) This video was good.

If I believed in demons, the entity calvinists worship would be the most evil one of all.

Charlie said...

"reverend"

"Is it evil to destroy a house that you built?"

Are human persons "houses"? No. So it's not evil to destroy a house that you created.

Let's try a question that is more analogous to calvinism:

Is it evil to create a person with a soul and, for absolutely no reason at all, force that person to burn eternally with no chance of redemption, no matter what the person tries to do?

Answer: Yes

John W. Loftus said...

Thanks Charlie. THAT is an analogous case.

Let's say, for the sake of argument (via Dr. Frankenstein) that Phil creates a human baby in his laboratory. Now it won't do to argue that this is impossible, for that is irrelevant to the example itself.

In this analogous case, is it legitimate, morally or legally, for Phil to kill that baby?

Didn't think so.

Once Phil tells us why this is not acceptable, morally or legally, then we will also know why it isn't legitimate for God to do so. Q.E.D.

BobCMU76 said...

The movie The Island looks at the Frankenstein life question. The morality is debatable, in a "Where I stand depends on where I sit" sense.

Since we're sitting in the world of a clone protragonist, we take very seriously the evil of harvesting their organs.

But evil is evident as well in the lack of candor about what's going on, and the fear that disclosure will shut the operation down.

To the extent that the Church suppresses Theodocic inquiriy, they admit to the evil of what they're trying to hide. Calvinism, though, is too proudly candid with their "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" perspective of God.

Scary Jesus said...

Go Charlie! I thought it was interesting that Calvinists bother to evangelize. In fact the whole Calvinism thing is a bit foreign to me as I hail from a hardcore branch of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. Where's Paul Mantana when you need him?(on second thought maybe we don't need him)

zilch said...

C'mon, scary, you know where to find Paul Manata. He's still holding forth at Triablogue, where he is currently pwning us with the unanswerable Christopher Hitchens Looks Like a Dork argument.

openlyatheist said...

Ha ha. I read the Manata post. I don't know who is more mentally disturbed, Manata for writing it, or Pike for actually thinking it was good. I'd respond if I didn't already know Calvinists are immune to reason.

James said...

Jim T, your sentiments are so close to mine I thought I wrote it! You're exactly right about Westboro, but tell a Calvinist that they're the logical extension of that system of belief and they'll deny it up and down, even though they have no coherent reason for doing so.

If God wills damnation for most of humanity and created them for that purpose, I think it's safe to say that He doesn't "love" them. Corollary: He hates them. Further, if God actively wills all the evils that befall humans such as murders and natural disasters and starvation, why not thank Him for His good works? "Thank God for dead soldiers"!

In any rate, arguing with Calvinists about some of the bizarre doctrines like God having two equally sovereign and contrary wills is generally futile, although I keep trying.

Anthony said...

OA wrote,

I'd respond if I didn't already know Calvinists are immune to reason.

Although for most Calvinists I would tend to agree, but don't count them all out. After all I was a hard core Calvinist, and yet, here I stand today, and unbeliever, a rejector of Christianity, in fact a rejector of all religious faith. It was indeed reason and evidence that eventually woke me up.

John W. Loftus said...

Anthony I curious to hear your story. It may be instructive for others.

Gandolf said...

"Reverend Phillip Brown said...
Hi John,
Amazing rhetoric but unconvincing.
Just 1 question,
Is it evil to destroy a house that you built?Regards, Rev Phil."

:( Bit of a waste of materials isnt it Rev Phil?.

John that guy on the vids eyes are kinda scary.Ive seen a few fellows in court rooms kinda looking the same.Mostly they were locked away for quite a number of years usually for being kinda bloodthirsty and terribly mean.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi All,

Sorry I fell of the face of earth for a bit, pressing matters in the real world.

I knew this would cause some bite-back.


@ bobcmu76

I think you missed my point. I was trying to ascertain whether morality is linked with creation.

@ writeagainstracism

You said,

Are you equating houses with human beings? Do houses have hopes, fears, loves, joy? Sorrow? Feelings of inadequacy and emptiness? Unfulfillable desires?

My response,
So intrinsic value is based in the ability feel emotion? I'm sorry but this value base system will leave coma patients of not value not to mention all living organisms.

You said,
I don't think it's a fair question. If you're saying that God has the right to destroy us because he created us, then I cannot gainsay you

My Response,
Perhaps it is not, however this is the biblical position, Calvin or Arminian. Now if a anyone enters into a reasoned debate about the sadistic nature of Calvinistic doctrine [biblical] then this question must be answered forthrightly.

You said,
If it's true, then I have no recourse and am slated for eternal torture and destruction, simply because I was born. Or if I am not, then countless other poor souls are.

My response,
I think this is only part one part however. Placed as you say or as this blog intends, it does sound evil, Something Calvin himself noted. But the Bible contains non-conditional promises which offer extreme hope to this side.

@ charlie

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

You said,
Is it evil to create a person with a soul and, for absolutely no reason at all, force that person to burn eternally with no chance of redemption, no matter what the person tries to do?

Answer: Yes

My Response,
I believe you have taken parts of what a Calvinist believes or what the Bible tries to paint.

Firstly, God does not destroy for "no reason." Sin is the reason.

Second, As I have tried to describe before, what is the difference in intrinsic value between a house with no soul and a human with one?

@ john w. loftus

Ah good, a little more rhetoric. John the problem is you have not said why it is morally wrong, in fact no-one has. It is just stated. This is my claim. I am trying to ascertain why you think a creator does not have rights over his creation? This is at the heart of the question.

Cleaver emotional stories about killing babies does heighten the moral emphasis but it does little to help find the answer to the question. No-one baulks when the house is mentioned, but a baby yes.

Essentially I am asking philosophically, what is the difference between copyright on a persons work to do as he/she pleases, and a creator God wanting to do as He please with his creatures?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

P.S. On a personal note I also struggle with this doctrine and have for a while. But I would be intrigued to find a philosophically satisfying answer to this objection. As yet I have not. I just keep coming up against emotive arguments, which powerful as they may be really are not well through through.

BobCMU76 said...

This is probably not a place for an ex-Calvinist Christian to argue its merits with another Christian. But I think the Fountainhead example is pretty close to the mark. Maybe you just don't know the story.

An architect of immense talent and integrity has a solution to the problem of public housing, but he's a pariah among the politicians who pay for the building. HE gets another, politically connected, architect, an old classmate, to present the building as his, under one condition -- No change in the design. But the other fellow lacks Roark's integrity and gives in to superfluous ornament, which deeply offends Roark.

So he blows up the buildings.

Now one might argue who the creator is in this scenario, but Roark is not the owner. He, not the building contractor (the demiurge of gnosticism), or the commissioning agency (quite a pantheon here), is the creator, he believes. And he believes that give him a right to destroy. And he argues in his trial the basis upon which he claims that right.

Since the Serpent suggested to Eve that God was unjust in denying her the fruit, God has been on trial. We don't have the right, I agree. But we have the inclination. In the course of God's "defense," what propositions does he make that evoke our anger. The question is, is our anger just? Or just futile?

One thing I would assert -- we are our own owner. God relinquished ownership of us. In fact, if he owned up, he'd remove that superfluous ornament and make us conform to His design. He only wants to destroy us when we are not His. And, personally, I think it is more just to throw Christians into the eternal pit of fire and brimstone (what is eternal, the pit, or our sojourn there?) because he owns us, as well as created us.

The other guys, well.... when they die, I guess they're abandoned property.

Logosfera said...

I have to disagree though. All christian flavours of God are infinitely evil.
If hell is eternal for those that get there there is a point in time at which there would be no difference between the Calvinist Christian god and other flavours.
Even if one person is in hell, after enough time there would be no difference between the Calvinist God and the rest.
Justice is about proportion. If proportion is fucked up by an pretty knowledgeable god that would be due exclusevely to his evil nature. Since after enough time the disproportionality would become almost equal, the evil nature that is the cause for that disproportion should be similar.

The question that needs to be asked is: Does it really matter if you spend 2 eternities in hell instead of one? Does it really matter if there is one more person besides you suffering in hell? No, as long as an infinite hell exists its creator is the Infinite Evil. The rest are details.

Jaceppe said...

Well, this comment is not so much on the lines of the Calvinist et.al. aspect of this thread here, but just on Hell in general.

Logosfera stated:

I have to disagree though. All christian flavours of God are infinitely evil.
If hell is eternal for those that get there there is a point in time…
...as long as an infinite hell exists its creator is the Infinite Evil. The rest are details.

In every sin there are at least 2-3 beings that are offended: The person who sins, possibly a person(s) being sinned against, and God. When we sin, I believe we always defile ourselves and God; and if the sin affects another(s) then they are impacted as well. I believe scripture teaches that God is the primary offendee in every sin because it is His nature being offended, His creation (including us) and His created moral order which is being trashed. If one commits some sin (pick your poison of any variety) it is easy for us to want to measure an appropriate justice (or punishment) purely on the human plane of existence. And, we do this in our legal systems. But, how significant are these offenses to God is an area of extreme speculation for us. Scripture describes these offenses as worthy of punishment and eternal at that. This may be confusing or difficult for us to grasp but we must also remember that Scripture describes God as a Being supreme in majesty, glory, etc. Revelation even has beings lying before the throne speaking “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and seeming to be content in doing nothing but that. How many of you can think of even a single natural activity which would satisfy you for all eternity if that was the only thing you could do? I can think of nothing in this natural life… (and “yes” the one you are thinking of may get boring too ) yet, these creatures in Revelation do only this so there appears to be activities associated with Worshiping our Creator that have this potential satisfaction… I think why Hell seems offensive to us is because we do not grasp the exaltedness of God in Scripture and we still see through a glass darkly. Most of our arguments against Hell’s eternity come down to something along these lines: “I don’t see how an eternity in Hell is an appropriate punishment for sins against God”. Well, God has paid a great price in Christ to deliver us from such a fate, but it is not just to deliver us from Hell but to deliver us unto Him… He is the true reward... it is rejection of God for which people will receive their appropriate recompense. Christians probably have lots of different ideas of what Hell is actually like and I won’t belabor you with mine. But, Scripture implies that Hell is an appropriate reward for those whose offenses against God must eventually receive just recompense outside of Christ. If we rephrase our argument above it really boils down to something like this: “I am ignorant of how an eternity in Hell can be an appropriate punishment for sins against God.” Well, ignorance is a rather flimsy foundation to build upon and doesn’t make for a very compelling argument against God on this matter.

Logosfera said...

@Jaceppe
First, if you can't think of ANY activity that can satisfy you if you do it FOR EVER, than all activities that could possibly offer us eternal pleasure (eg: worshiping an asshole) is just TALKING NONSENSE. You are talking about something that is not even imaginable so talking about its probability or possibility is a waste of time.
Second, if you believe in the Bible and the offendee will feel so defastated by something I would do in my lifetime that he is compelled to send me to hell for eternity than all I can say is that you sold your soul for a chimera. Your offendee is supposedly a self-sufficient being so the level of devastation I may induce but my actions is completely at his control. God omnipotence gives him the ability to make himself indifferent to my actions for example. The fact is that he chooses to be Infintely Evil.
Thirdly, regarding the alleged argument from ignorance (btw, just because you know the name of the fallacy doesn't mean you are always right about spoting them), well, I haven't met a single person that can explain clearly HOW an infinite punishment is a JUST punishment for a finite evil. You tell me now, that actually SIN is AN INFINITE OFFENSE one can bring toward God, because God CHOOSES to feel INFINITELY OFFENDED. Given that God is infinetely more wiser that a muslim retard that chosses to feel offended when a woman reported that he raped her, can you please explain what would be a better explanation for god's choice to feel offended beside the fact that he is Infinetely Evil?

Actually, those are questions to answer yourself. I don't have an authoritarive and supernatural epistemology so I really don't need those answers.

Jim T. said...

Jaceppe >> If we rephrase our argument above it really boils down to something like this: “I am ignorant of how an eternity in Hell can be an appropriate punishment for sins against God.”

Within the Christian belief system, then yes, I can see your point here. Christians must often profess ignorance about the workings and purposes of God. That's how faith is often maintained, and this is currently what I am personally struggling with.


Jaceppe >> Well, ignorance is a rather flimsy foundation to build upon...

True enough, but that's not the point here. I think the point is to show the entire Calvinist system (or Hell in general for your post) is incoherent, and perhaps it is not of divine origin, but human origin.

I have trouble believing that God would create such incoherent systems, but I am fully aware of just how capable humans are in creating very elaborate and imaginative systems. And when human-made systems get pressed, the incoherence becomes evident to some.


Jaceppe >> and doesn’t make for a very compelling argument against God on this matter.

But the argument isn't against God, it's against certain systems of beliefs about God.


- Jim

lee said...

"Strange a God who mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness, then invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none Himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon Himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship Him!"
— Mark Twain

Gandolf said...

Jim T: "I have trouble believing that God would create such incoherent systems, but I am fully aware of just how capable humans are in creating very elaborate and imaginative systems. And when human-made systems get pressed, the incoherence becomes evident to some."

And when you look at these religious books of any faith ,its so easy to see the parallels.Well easy for some of us anyway.

These books are so full of complications contradictions and pure gibberish ,its almost degrading that man would think it word of God.

I`d feel quite safe and be happy to hazard a guess that if there were any god that might actually be.He`d quite likely be much more happy with those who didnt profess to know what they didnt, than those that guessed and blindly followed written religious word of man.

It is with my higher opinion of if i were to believe in a god what his word and directions and with such divine clarity the likely lack of contradictions that there then would be.

That im not at all afraid to discredit these faithful writings all so full of mumbo jumbo and contradictions,of which there is so much real factual evidence available in this world for those with open eyes. To suggest parallels within these books are no more than common confused thoughts and actions of man.

I pity these folk who believe such nastiness.For not only might they have free will but should they choose to use it they have common sense as well.

James said...

Reverend Brown asks: "I am trying to ascertain why you think a creator does not have rights over his creation? This is at the heart of the question."

Assuming you believe in God, technically He DOES have the ability to do whatever He likes with His creation. Does He have the "right"? I guess that's a nonsense question. A right as determined by whom? Himself? If He is the highest power, than He can grant Himself that right. If there is another claim to which He must answer (call it "goodness"), then He is not God.

So yes, He does have a right to "do whatever He likes" with His creation in one sense. However, if He does not conform to the noblest definitions of Good and Just and Merciful by AT LEAST human standards, we cannot call Him "good". He's supposed to be infinitely better, but the Calvinist version has very few standards, if any. Even tyrants tire of their cruelty after a season. Not so, the Calvinist God.

In this universe, we can only say He's "we know not what" and we worship Him because He has all the power. If His good is NOTHING like what we understand good to be, it does no use to call Him "good", does it?

Philip said...

rev,

Dont be silly. Houses don't have feelings and sensation. People do. Major ethical difference: humans can be hurt, houses can't.

And if God has the authority to torture us forever, then it doesn't make it right, because God has no standards of right and wrong.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ James,

You said,

A right as determined by whom? Himself? If He is the highest power, than He can grant Himself that right. If there is another claim to which He must answer (call it "goodness"), then He is not God.

Sure, He has the right fro he is the creator.

You said,

So yes, He does have a right to "do whatever He likes" with His creation in one sense. However, if He does not conform to the noblest definitions of Good and Just and Merciful by AT LEAST human standards, we cannot call Him "good". He's supposed to be infinitely better, but the Calvinist version has very few standards, if any. Even tyrants tire of their cruelty after a season. Not so, the Calvinist God.

But the Calvinist presupposes that he is Merciful and Just. So there is not a problem.


@ philip

You said,

Dont be silly. Houses don't have feelings and sensation. People do. Major ethical difference: humans can be hurt, houses can't.

And if God has the authority to torture us forever, then it doesn't make it right, because God has no standards of right and wrong.

Here is the problem philip,

If it is moral only to do what one can/cannot feel then you run into a major problem. For example, should we take drugs so we cannot fell and behave as we wish?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

lee said...

"Reverend Brown asks: "I am trying to ascertain why you think a creator does not have rights over his creation? This is at the heart of the question."

Simply because a creator god is almighty, does not mean that he is necessarily worthy of my worship.

dibiz116 said...

i am in no way a calvanist (nor was i ever one), in fact i am an atheist, but i do know that the last part of your post, where you said if you went around torturing calvanists it wouldn't matter because you may be one of the chosen anyway, is actually not what the calvanists say. they do believe in the whole predestination BS, but that only people who do good and follow gods will are the ones who were chosen from the beginning - so if you were not chosen being good doesn't matter but if you were chosen you wouldn't be doing bad things to begin with.
other than that i completely agree with you; predestination + free will make even less sense to me than religion as a whole.

Logosfera said...

@Reverend Phillip Brown
"But the Calvinist presupposes that he is Merciful and Just. So there is not a problem."

The guy you responded to said that IF GOOD is beating people fore eternity than WE cannot use GOOD to describe compassion, charity etc. The calvinists may presupose whatever they like about their ghosts but every presuposition has concequences. I can agree to call God GOOD but I cannot use that word for anything else after that. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

You can use BEAUTIFULL to describe a woman that has 400 pounds, 3 legs and is covered with pimples but you CANNOT use after that the same word to describe Angelina Jolie.

Jesus, it's unbelievable the length some people are willing to go to kiss god's ass for a place in heaven. Your understanding of christianity may be consistent because you are inconsistent in using words. Think about it.

James said...

Rev. Brown writes: "But the Calvinist presupposes that he is Merciful and Just. So there is not a problem."

Define "Merciful". Define "Just". What the Calvinist wants to do is give these terms relative definitions, dependent on whom they are applying to. People are expected to uphold constant, unchanging definitions of these, while whatever God does is supposedly "Just" by virtue of the fact that He is God.

You cannot say God is "Just" because there is no context for you to do so. It is just a meaningless word. You may as well say He is "verzqivocal".

What Calvinism really states is that humans are expected to keep certain standards of pre-defined morality while God can do whatever the hell he wants and just label it as moral because He's got the bigger stick.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ lee

You said,

Simply because a creator god is almighty, does not mean that he is necessarily worthy of my worship

My Response,

Logical fallacy. If not a creator God who is almighty then who? Not good enough.

@ logosfera

You said,

The guy you responded to said that IF GOOD is beating people fore eternity than WE cannot use GOOD to describe compassion, charity etc. The calvinists may presupose whatever they like about their ghosts but every presuposition has concequences. I can agree to call God GOOD but I cannot use that word for anything else after that. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

My response,

Thanks that sounds reasonable to a degree. Here is the problem. If a creator God owns something, {humans] then His rights to do what he likes is complete. So to say compassion and charity is somethings we cannot label the Christina God is simply philosophical prostitution. You need to answer the question.


You said,

You can use BEAUTIFULL to describe a woman that has 400 pounds, 3 legs and is covered with pimples but you CANNOT use after that the same word to describe Angelina Jolie.


My response,

Hmmmm,? What is your point?


You said,

Jesus, it's unbelievable the length some people are willing to go to kiss god's [sic] ass for a place in heaven. Your understanding of christianity may be consistent because you are inconsistent in using words. Think about it.

My response,

I have thought about it!

@ james

You said,

Define "Merciful". Define "Just". What the Calvinist wants to do is give these terms relative definitions, dependent on whom they are applying to. People are expected to uphold constant, unchanging definitions of these, while whatever God does is supposedly "Just" by virtue of the fact that He is God.

My response,

Ok then define absolute justice and mercy? I think Socrates failed at this. Perhaps you are more enlightened.

You said,

You cannot say God is "Just" because there is no context for you to do so. It is just a meaningless word. You may as well say He is "verzqivocal".


My response,

The justice is the creation.

You said,

What Calvinism really states is that humans are expected to keep certain standards of pre-defined morality while God can do whatever the hell he wants and just label it as moral because He's got the bigger stick.

My response,

No, that's not the position. The Calvinist tries to put God where God should be no matter how hard it feels....

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Logosfera said...

@Reverend Phillip Brown

Have you ever seen a computer game? The programmer of the game has all the rights towards the characters of the game. But that doesn't automagically makes him GOOD in the eyes of the characters.

"The justice is the creation". You avoid assigning a context so you little reasoning has any weight.

My response,
"The justice for the WW2 is the creation of the WW2". Hitler is great. Now, get down on your knees an pray to Hitler. Ooh... I forgot, Hitler doesn't have anything to bribe you to let his atrocities slide. But since your God has the biggest gun your spine becomes as bendy as a rubber string.

a helmet said...

Calvinists never answer the question how man's accountability came about. Why is man responsible to begin with?

Concerning God's being perfectly good: According to Calvinism God is good by definition. Your or my opinion about good might be totally different to God's understanding of the word good. However, a goodness that does not need to comprise anything of the meaning we would normally presume, is an empty word.
Then it doesn't make sense to rack one's head about the subject of goodness and the meaning of good at all. It is just a matter of definition.

a helmet said...

robert,

yes, in calvinism the problem of evil doesn't really exist.

It is like this:

1) There is one God.
2) God is omnipotent.
3) There is evil.

And finally:
4) Let us define: God is good.

This is calvinism's statement of the problem of evil and its easy solution.

Jim T. said...

Logosfera>>I can agree to call God GOOD but I cannot use that word for anything else after that. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

james >> You cannot say God is "Just" because there is no context for you to do so. It is just a meaningless word. You may as well say He is "verzqivocal".

a helmet >> However, a goodness that does not need to comprise anything of the meaning we would normally presume, is an empty word.

Regarding the use of words like "good" and "holy" to describe the Calvinist's God, I am often reminded of the following quote:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Gandolf said...

The calvinist God then sends the message that whats created by the creator is his property and is fair game to do with as it pleases .

If we are supposed to try to get near this god then it must mean we would try to be like him.

Then this must mean that with anything that is our property we dont need to take into account the feeling of anyone else.I might as a father be the creator of children ,should (i) make mistakes in their upbringing and be a part of their make up and personality that they now have.It just doesnt matter one bit! because i as the creator am the boss and can show them wrath and balame them for all they have done wrong as much as i jolly well wish !.

I might give money to build something for the public ,should they not be perfect and piss me off .I might then decide to make them pay for it and take this gift back smashing it, and then send them to live in some fiery volcano .

Yes the suggestions of God/s suggest something that is allowed to be and do as it pleases without being accountable to anyone.
Yet expects sinless perfect folk and will pour wrath on them all if they are not.

What a load of rubbish .What a fad seeded and born of of dark age superstitious ignorance.

Dona said...

I would like to apologize for the hypocrisy and ignorance of my fellow-Christians. We have, for the most part, utterly failed to live a life and preach a gospel that is true.
But would you judge a father for the sins of his children?
What if God doesn't fit into the bottle of Calvinism or Arminianism or any other "brand" of Christianity.
What if he's just God and you have to face him one day?
Again, forgive us for failing to show the truth of God's love to the world.

asonofgod said...

Rom. 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

divine predestination is not based upon God's foreknowledge. Predestination is not God's foreknowledge of what would come to pass, but his purpose and determination of what must come to pass. It is not the result of what God knew man would do. Rather, predestination is what he determined he would do. The fact is, nothing could be absolutely foreknown that was not absolutely predetermined. That which is foreknown must have been foreordained. God knew the end of all things from the beginning, because he had predestinated the end from the beginning (Isa. 14:24, 26, 27; 46:9-11).

It's sad that people over think what John Calvin meant.

beowulf2k8 said...

Calvinism is certainly pure evil, and so is anyone who excuses it. I would have the Calvinists (even though their minds are closed) read that passage that says all Scripture is inspired. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2nd Timothy 3:16-17) Calvinists are against good works and the notion that men can repent or do good works, but even their second god, Paul, says that the very purpose of Scripture and inspiration is to make men perfectly equipped for good works! And he also says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable" NOT "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is inerrant." You can rest assured that whatever Scripture goes against equipping a man for good works is in error and that the only profit to be derived from it is its refutation by another Scripture. In other words, much of Romans 9 is garbage and lies which certainly are not inerrant and which can only profit you in the sense that you can see what NOT to believe once you see them refuted by virtually every other Scripture in the New Testament. The overriding rule in interpreting Scripture is that its purpose is to profit a man by equipping him for good works. The second rule is that Jesus trumps Paul.

(Despite the gratuitous use of the f-word, the video is correct about Calvinism. Actually, the gratuitous use of the f-word may help Calvinists get the point because they use it more than anyone since they don't think their actions matter cuz their irresistibly saved and all they think. They're also the most drunken and debaucherous of liars who call themselves "Christians" when they are not, and most of them smoke, not to mention they cheat on their wives and have gay orgies. Their evil god, Satan, binds their will to do so, they say.)

Dave Parrish said...

The Wonder of God, in His Sovereignty is that He has allowed us to have a free will to decide to receive His Grace or not, in order to be saved. We don't think twice of the Grace He has given us for life here. Consciousness, DNA code, heart beating, liver working, Free Air, Water, Plants and Animals grow into food, the Sun, the order of our world etc. But to be saved, to surrender your heart into His, that must be a call from your heart. And that is Love. Love is surrendering yourself into another. We rarely see this done today by human beings. Most of our surrender (maybe all) has a self centered motive behind it, yes I will love that person but then I will get this back... God gains Nothing by having us surrender into Him!!! But His Loving nature compels Him to reach out to save us. To have already paid the price of the forgiven for all people sins!! Wow. Calvinism definitely is distortion of God. There is no love in this system concocted by man, and it was created by Satan to deceive People from knowing the true and Living God who does love all people, has died for the sins of all people and wants to save you and have you come into His Family and live forever in Him. Wow. So check out Jesus in the bible and what He did for you, and discard what men / theologians say, yadi yadi. God's Word the Bible is His love letter to YOU and if you open your heart to Him, try reading the Book of John with a seeking heart, His Heart of Love will overwhelm you and you will want to then admit you are a sinner and cast your dying life into His to be Born from Above by His Spirit. (And thus inherit His Eternal life into your heart) I must say, it is AWESOME to know God intimately, to know where I am going when I die from my body. This is an experience of the life of God in my soul. If you say you were a Christian, then left, I am sorry, that indeed you never surrendered your heart into His. If you did, you cannot leave Him because the Love you will experience, His Heart 2 yours, is amazing, intoxicating, wonderful, and you just never cannot have enough and even look forward to eternity after death!! How many Christians do you know that long to go to Him in death? Not many. Too many phonies who claim to know Him, but then truthfully cling to this world because the really have not been saved, but are only living a religion. I would prefer to go to God in the rapture, His calling up to the clouds of His church, but if by death in His calling, so be it. I have a CERTAIN HOPE of future wonders coming before me that will blow away ANYTHING I have seen or experienced here!! To Have the God of the Universe, who created all matter by a speaking out of His will and who died for my sins and now has given me eternal Life in Jesus, to have this God now living in my soul, I just can't tell you in words what it is like!! So if you left "christianity", aka a system you tried to enter through your mind, I would encourage you to open up your Heart to Jesus to be truly born again. You will not regret it!! May His Extreme Grace touch your heart today.

Dave Parrish
Hisheart2yours@aol.com

TexasLonghorn175 said...

Loftus,

Yes, almost all Calvinists believe Adam could have done differently. (See the Westminster Confession.) Further not everyone who believes in predestination to salvation is also a determinist (eg. many Lutherans, a minority of Presbyterians, and the Janensists of the Old Catholic Church.)
Also, I don't think that you can legitimately call God "evil" since you don't believe he exists. Plus, in an atheistic world, belief in good and evil only evolved due to its usefulness for survival and manipulating others. So why don’t you go criticizing “evil” for being “evil” . . . and an imaginary, delusional idea that has no basis in reality. You should write a book and call it “The Evil Delusion.”
It would be much more logical and consistent for you to refer to actions as “altruistic” or “not altruistic” instead of “good” or “evil.” But even then, criticizing God for not being altruistic is just a non sequitur.
Why would God be evil for not preventing the damnation of people who reject the evidence for his existence, mock him, insult him, hate him, have contempt for his teaching, live as though they are gods unto themselves, and enjoy doing such things?