This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. ITT I openly answer questions about Christianity according to Calvinism.

User Info: Diranosaur

Diranosaur
8 years ago#21
AtomicItalian posted...
Before I answer that, tell me what the book is about, who it's written to, when it was written, and what has lead up to that point in the book.

I'll encourage other people to hold off on answering you on this until you've provided an answer.


It's about Moses retelling the words of God. It was directed towards the Jews, but did not specify a period of time. It is not fully known when it was written. Most stuff until then is retelling the laws of God.

It's quite an interesting read, but not exactly the most fun part of the Bible.
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/

User Info: Diranosaur

Diranosaur
8 years ago#22
kingschosen posted...
They were written for the Jews... yes. Yes, it was specifically for them. I don't know how much clearer I can be. The OT scriptures stood as a foundation for the teachings of Christ.

During the life and after the death of Christ, the teachings were spread and written for not only Jews but also Gentiles.


I haven't said that it is not for the Jews, what I said was that it didn't specify a time, so it should be relevant today too. It was about your topic, not because it was a law that applied to Christians (well, depending on how you interpret the words of Jesus), but because I was questioning the benevolence of the God you believe in, by stating that he allowed, and commanded, mass murder of innocents, and I wanted you to give your opinion on the benevolence of a God that commands things like this, because I assume that you do believe in the same God that is mentioned in the OT.
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/

User Info: AtomicItalian

AtomicItalian
8 years ago#23
Diranosaur posted...
AtomicItalian posted...
Before I answer that, tell me what the book is about, who it's written to, when it was written, and what has lead up to that point in the book.

I'll encourage other people to hold off on answering you on this until you've provided an answer.

It's about Moses retelling the words of God. It was directed towards the Jews, but did not specify a period of time. It is not fully known when it was written. Most stuff until then is retelling the laws of God.


It's not just that though. Moses is also laying down the stipulations of the covenant between God and the Hebrews.

This is where the exclusivity comes in. Modern day Christians are not Hebrews. The covenant does not extend to us.

As to your point concerning God waging war then saying "you shall not kill", look at the language there. God is saying "YOU shall not kill." He's telling them that the judgement of death is reserved for Him alone. God sets rules for us. It's not a democracy. He's not bound by those rules.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 1 John 3:16

User Info: AtomicItalian

AtomicItalian
8 years ago#24
I haven't said that it is not for the Jews, what I said was that it didn't specify a time, so it should be relevant today too. It was about your topic, not because it was a law that applied to Christians (well, depending on how you interpret the words of Jesus), but because I was questioning the benevolence of the God you believe in, by stating that he allowed, and commanded, mass murder of innocents, and I wanted you to give your opinion on the benevolence of a God that commands things like this, because I assume that you do believe in the same God that is mentioned in the OT.

What is objectively wrong with the mass murder of innocents?
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 1 John 3:16

User Info: Diranosaur

Diranosaur
8 years ago#25
AtomicItalian posted...
What is objectively wrong with the mass murder of innocents?

Nothing is objectively wrong with it, but according to the majority of the world's population, it's not exactly a nice thing. Aren't people prone to judging good and evil by their own morals? To me, mass murder is evil and anyone commanding it must thus be evil in my eyes.

To someone who believes it is good, then the commander is also good. But saying that you believe that mass murder is okay is quite taboo, even with Christians.
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/

User Info: AtomicItalian

AtomicItalian
8 years ago#26
Diranosaur posted...
AtomicItalian posted...
What is objectively wrong with the mass murder of innocents?

Nothing is objectively wrong with it, but according to the majority of the world's population, it's not exactly a nice thing. Aren't people prone to judging good and evil by their own morals? To me, mass murder is evil and anyone commanding it must thus be evil in my eyes.

To someone who believes it is good, then the commander is also good. But saying that you believe that mass murder is okay is quite taboo, even with Christians.


Oh, I think it's wrong. But I have a reason to think it's wrong that I can back up to an objective standard.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make here after admitting that the action of killing is subjectively wrong.

I think it's right if God does it, because He's God and He reserves that right. I think it's wrong when humans do it because we've been commanded not to and because we destroy something that bears His image.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 1 John 3:16

User Info: kingschosen

kingschosen
8 years ago#27
Yeah, but Diranosaur, you're veering way off from the original sentiment expressed at the beginning of my topic.

User Info: the_hedonist

the_hedonist
8 years ago#28
I'm a Calvinist as well, but I would love to hear how you reconcile moral responsibility and God's sovereignty. I have an answer myself, but I am interested in hearing your answer, as I believe it is the most difficult philosophical question Calvinism must answer.

That is, if God predestined that a person sin, why does God hold him or her morally responsible for that action? Is that not unjust?
Everything that doesn't have to do with elephants is irrelephant.
~The Christian Hedonist~
#29
(message deleted)

User Info: the_hedonist

the_hedonist
8 years ago#30
Chaos Scade posted...
kingschosen isn't a Calvinist because he claims not to believe in penal substitution and imputed righteousness.

While those doctrines are historically associated with John Calvin, I do not think disagreement with them constitutes not being a Calvinist. To be a Calvinist, you do not have to agree with covenant theology, infant baptism, his particular view on the Eucharist, etc. In short, you do not have to agree with Calvin on every point of theology to be considered a Calvinist. In common terminology today, Calvinism generally means agreement with the five points (tulip). I do not know whether the TC agrees with all five points, but Jansen did not advocate perseverance of the saints; that would be one useful way to distinguish between TC and Calvin or Jansen depending which way he leaned on that issue.
Everything that doesn't have to do with elephants is irrelephant.
~The Christian Hedonist~
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. ITT I openly answer questions about Christianity according to Calvinism.
  • Topic Archived