I am thankful that God has given us brains. Thinking biblically has to do with comparing scripture with scripture and 'thinking outside the box'. You have had an interesting journey, indeed.

You and Sher have an awesome Christmas!

Good stuff. A few things:

Imo, you have characterized and discovered the elusive irony that similarly defines both the liberal/Calvinistic systems. One of my main gripes with many right-wing Christians has been that their primary reason for voting conservatively has been and will continue to be moral issues, all very well and good (to some extent, as far as I think that morality *should* be legislated) but in the end, they remain ignorant of why conservativism believes what it does. This leaves them vulnerable to liberal socioeconomic blither. I think that it would be interesting to go back and trace the roots of liberalism/socialism/communism in this country and to find what resemblance it bears to a ever-morphing Christianity. In my opinion the Christian concepts of helping the poor, etc, have been hijacked by well-meaning Christians to support socialistic reform, and have been used in a way that they were never intended to. Story for another time, though.

And yes, both sides are clearly irrational. I wouldn't go so far as to as to label them the same thing, but they are born from the same heart and a similarly warped reality, and hence bear some resemblance to eachother. Neither will be penetrated by clear argument, both are fixed by a chink in the armor that allows reality to intrude to the extent that the smallest proposition questioned brings the whole thing crashing down in ruin. In that sense, the way out of Calvinism/Liberalism is very much a personal story and no one's story will be the same.

And honestly, the problem was never Calvinism/Liberalism to begin with. It was people and relationships that led certain other people to forsake relationship (to reality, to God, to other people) and live in a warped and looped version of reality in which they are forever railing against unresolved issues. It's Groundhog Day. It's interesting that in a movie that revolves around circularity that the primary issue becomes choice.

If I were you, I would question (as I always am) the extent to which even now you are living the loop. It's still possible to live in that loop even after leaving it you know. Personal crusades are often of this nature. Again unresolved issues are key. I would submit that as you grow and progress (as I've noticed in my own journey) Calvinism itself will fade away and the your focus will begin to sharpen and the true issues will come to light.

Good stuff, way to see the whole.

Dave

Yes, I definetely agree. I never ever think that I have gotten rid of every mental obstacle or issue that I may have. And to clarify, I do not think Calvinism is the big bad devil religion. When you strip it all down .. imo opinion it is nothing but a lesson in pschycology, and the people involved in it have major unresolved issues. I definetely do not blame the actual 5 points (as stupid as they are) for anything...they are merely the result of human beigns seeking to compensate for something else. So it's hard to be mad at any ONE thing about calvinism, and I definetely know that anything I've had to get over was personal, not theological. I didn't one day discover a verse that disproved calvinism and now I was cured. I made a choice to face my issues and sift them through reality, and the end product was ... no calvinism :) At some point you either have to meet reality as it is or choose to continue in the delusion. The delusions feels much safer and the reality is scary, but again...nothing really worthwile comes without difficulty and hard work. I would say truly crazy people at one point chose to stop acting within reality, and I do not think calvinists have gone that far. I do believe the split that is caused when one chooses delusion over reality results in a sort of neurosis that I have seen in every calvinist I have met.

      There are a # of other issues completely unrelated to calvinism that I can think of..but this just seems to be the easiest to write about, and the most interesting :)

Here's one thing that I think will help you understand what I meant in the last paragraph of my comments, directly relating to your statement in your response: "I do believe the split that is caused when one chooses delusion over reality results in a sort of neurosis that I have seen in every calvinist I have met."

What I meant quite simply, the choice for Calvinism doesn't produce the neurosis (I think it's quite possible to be a whole and healthy Calvinist, one simply would not act out one's stated beliefs), the *neurosis* itself created and seeks out systems like Calvinism. Calvinism is simply one of the many neurotically produced compensatory religions in this world. This is why I said you need to go to the heart of the issue, the people in your life. Calvinism didn't make your or I what we are. People and people's issues (including our own) did. In that sense, if you are saying what I think you're saying (I could be wrong), you have it backwards. Look past the system and start discovering the relationships imo.

Further note, trying to clarify what I just said, as I look at it it's a little muddled.

The neurosis was there to begin with, for whatever reason (everyone's story is different), the religion (in this case, Calvinism) was embraced to compensate for the issues themselves. There is some sense in which the religion itself can damage an impressionable mind (children, for instance) but then the failing there lies with the lack of sense of being (and in Calvinism's case) a sense of *well-being* being established by the parents. Calvinism by itself is simply a shell, what matters is the strength of the mind and being that chooses to accept or reject it's inconsistency (unreality) in order to cope with pre-existent failings. All religion, not just Calvinism, shares this unhealthy obsession with beginning from a point of passivity (misread often as Jesus' call to "weakness") rather than a point of strength (choice). In the end, I think that you'll find that your anger at Calvinism is a mask for something else, that is, assuming that you still bear some residual anger (I'm assuming you do because your posts on the subject are frequent).

In other words, you can't continue to point the finger at Calvinism (although it is, I admit, rightfully pointed and well worded) without to some extent sharing in the same unreality that the Calvinists themselves embrace. As long as your fear is the Big Bad Wolf or night-times's darkness, your true issue with fear will always remain unresolved.

That's just my thought and experience.

Dave

Yeah in I pretty much said that in other words in my last post. Calvinism is something a little more concrete than the complexity and abstractness of relationship, self , etc... I use it sort of as a frame of reference, maybe too often..oh well. I don't blame it for anything...what sense is there in that? We all make choices..and for many different reasons..some of them are exactly what you just described..shortfalls in one's being. Because calvinism was the main and most focal example of a compensatory behaviour in my life, I often symbolize things in connection with it, perhaps too much. I see your point. But it's been a long time since I've considred cavlnism to blame for any shortfalls that may have led me to make my own inept choices etc...We all have our personal journey and we all internally and externally(sometimes) symbolize it the best way we can. Any posts about the true nature of my journey (and the lack of imagery involved) would be rather bizarre and maybe a tad too personal too just broadcast. Do consider that I have more motives for posting about calvinism than to give a full description of my own progress in life. I just happen to have been exposed to it again (for the first time in a long time) and thought I'd share some thoughts...but calvnism as a subject will be oficially dropeed...on to better things.... hey I work on the 32nd floor of town pavillion now..it is sweet!

You know, it's interesting to know what people think about Calvinism. For my part, the misnomer of "neurotic" is highly overused; and logically (if you want to stress it), the whole deal is a fallacy of the most common sort: emotive language and straw man. Not to say that I'm not guilty of it myself: now who among us is perfect in arguing??

 I'd just like you to know, as a person who does not speak her mind rarely aggressively and never openly, that all you have written about the personal "issues" and "mental disorders" of Calvinism is, from my experience and from the experience of people I have known, completely erroneous and judgmental to say the least. You speak of anger towards Arminianism, and I'm telling you that you better start pointing the finger your own way. You want to prove Arminianism, liberalism, conservatism, or the correctness of your own worldview- do something for me- cast down your own human and finite perspective view on things and start giving some valid proof: use the Bible. I don't care whether you believe in absolute free will, conservative politics, conditional election. etc., give me answers that are not the offspring of your mighty mind and rational discourse. If we want to know the truth, I wouldn't trust a human being at the cost of my life. Talk about stupidity! Are we mortals so godlike that we can decide what should and shouldn't be? Who are we to put God in the dock?

   I don't like to assume, but I can see that you harbor bitterness towards your own upbringing that I do not. Am I neurotic and brainwashed? I think not, and for once in my life (and hopefully for the last) I'm going to tell you what I really think: no matter what you think of Calvinism, your assessment of the doctrines and the people (I among them) who believe the doctrines on the basis of reasoning from God's Word is ridiculous. I'm no Calvinist because my parents conditioned me so, and if there's one thing that I've learned through the doctrine and through real life experience- God is God, and acceptance of that is the door to peace and restoration. I don't need healing from the devastating effects of Calvinism, and for all the pain I've endured in my still short life, the realization that God controls all is the thread that ties all the seemingly unconnected and meaningless events in my life into one meaningful, beautiful story of redemption. I'm not comforted in knowing that Satan has given me a disease that brings me pain every day, but I am in knowing that by it, God has achieved the reformation and sanctification of my soul. God's not in Heaven wringing His hands nor is Satan laughing at our pain. On the contrary, it was the greatest evil of the world that devastated Satan. God isn't the origin of evil, but He does NOT allow a thing to happen against His will. There's a classic contradiction of terms.

  You want to correct me? Use the Bible, and I'll begin to be credulous; but your psychological assessments, especially "neurotic" and "healing," achieve nothing but incredulity. If we do even have the unmitigated nerve and audacity to put God in the dock, we could at least have the courtesy to hear God speak.

                                      In truth and sincerity, with love,          Your sister

    

Wow. Hey Kris! :) I see that you've found our now somewhat extinct forum of ideas and have entered the fray.

Some comments about what you said:

The burden of proof is on you to provide backup for your assessment that the term "neurotic" is an emotive fallacy. As it is used it is aptly descriptive, and, at least (I can't speak for Jon) not perjorative in the least, simply accurate. A neurosis is a disorder of the mind (scientifically), and I have simply expanded the word to include a disorder of the soul. Call it "sin" if you'd like. It's all the same thing, but I find it useful to narrow things down a bit. As for "straw man arguments" ,well, that remains to be determined according to our agreed on definition of Calvinism.

I'm very glad that you finally did speak your mind. I've always been interested in what you thought, but you never shared. :) You should do it more often, I get tired of arguing with the same people all the time. What Jon spoke of regarding the animosity that Calvinism has towards systems diametrically (sometimes symmetrically) to it's own has actually been well documented throughout history (witness John Calvin's arrest and condemnation of Michael Servetus in 1553). It's current day manifestation is somewhat tamer but no less potent, and is by no means limited to Calvinism alone. Most of the denominations share this religious "bigotry", so to speak. What Jon noticed and I have witnessed is an obsession with "being right" bordering on mania that results in an unhealthy (and inaccurate) picture of other denominations (religions). In the case of current day Catholicism, for instance, it has resulted in a skewed and historically backwards and stagnant view of what the Catholic church is/believes. Talk about straw men. :)

As for using the Bible, I'm afraid that I can't oblige you there. I could, of course, but my interests lie in other directions. If you're interested in a different point of view on the same scripture verses that Calvinists claim "prove Calvinism" I suggest you get in touch with Jay, or perhaps find the copy that he gave Dad a while back.

As far as my mighty mind is concerned (thank you!), I simply lay claim to discovering truth not inventing it. I wouldn't call that arrogance. Perhaps you would. I don't know. I'm interested though, what leads you to your confidence that *your* mighty mind and rational discourse (to use your terms) have not been led astray in the very thing *you* purport to be truth. No one is claiming to be godlike. That's your straw man, and that's (you'll pardon me) the hedge that Calvinism has taught you to build at that crucial point. Man is either worm or man is God, there is no in-between. It's completely illogical. Telling me to go to the Bible, in my opinion, is the Calvinist's first way of attempting to slide in a point unnoticed. So, I can accept your premise, let you score your point and beat you on your own terms (I AM arrogant, I admit it) or I can catch you at the crucial point and disallow it. I'm more of the latter kind of person, so thanks but no thanks.

I came up with this idea quite a while ago, regarding, in essence, the God in the Dock scenario. Let us assume, and most people of most religions (surprising- CONSENSUS, there's the word) do assume that God breathed his spirit into us and that we are made in His image. Hence, as the Bible says "His law is written upon our hearts." If I can, in my inferior humanness (note that I use this *not* to describe a fallen moral state but simply a creaturely one) can show more mercy, can have more love, can wish for the most reprobate of sinners to be saved, to be given another chance, then I have unseated God from his Throne. This regards, of course, the definition that we all have of God as *the* essence of lovingkindness, justice, and truth. and of course, I have, on numerous occasions, chosen, in my heart to save the person that Calvinism would condemn, to call the person Christian that Calvinism would call heathen. But, last time I checked, I don't have a throne. Dang it. You see, it ends up being an exercise in circularity and logic and is really quite pointless (it's a sort of philosophical inverse equation) but it illustrates one thing to me, and that is that every day everyone of us puts God on the Dock and He is never found lacking. Rather than "who are we to put God on the dock" I think that He actually encourages it, for it increases understanding and it demonstrates endless depths that we never knew existed. What it shows me is that what I desire *does* have a fulfillment somewhere and that the desire simply points to the reality. Anything less than our deepest desire is simply settling and not of God. Long ago I used to express this (probably better) by telling Mom and Dad that I would rather go to Hell than Calvinism's Heaven. And, predictably, Calvinism leaves itself wiggle room by declaring that true desire itself has been corrupted (confusing it, wrongly, I might add with the carnal desires of the flesh) Hence, we don't know what we want. Nice :)

Finally, I can't speak for Jon, but I no longer harbor bitterness towards Calvinism or any other religious system. Nor towards my upringing, for that matter. There is sadness of course, but not the sort that I think you see me with. I actually appreciate Calvinism as the structure that kept our family what is was. I'm grateful for it. I've always been unsure of your persuasions in this regard, Kristen, but I don't think that I've ever once thought that you would be the type of person to be "brainwashed" (you'll note that not once in my discussions on Calvinism have I ever used the word "brainwashed", it's innaccurate) by Calvinism. I've always thought that you would be the type of person to arrive at it on your own, after serious thought. So please don't misquote me. To briefly use formal logic you don't allow for a third option when considering the causes and/or persistent happenings of disease and tragedies. You fall into the trap of God or Satan, nothing else.

Classic contradictions are just that- contradictions. Contradictions imply mutually exclusive categories. There is no mystical integration that allows them both to exist simultaneously. In all other categories of thought we laugh ourselves silly at the thought of a dogcat or a wetfire, except this one. Fancy Greek terms invented post-Constantine to reconcile irreconcilable differences between warring Christian factions nothing more. The idea of "free agency" (combining free will and predestination so that you can have your cake and eat it too) was nothing but appeasement so both sides could get along. Referring back to my rambling concerning unseating God from his throne, our human instinct tells us that a person who creates injury in order to heal injury has a name-- a sadist. Except of course, when that individual is God. I made my choice long ago, I chose the Aslan of a Narnia that perhaps wasn't even real while suffocating under the fumes of an unreal world. Since then I have been rewarded by discovering that the world is much bigger than I thought it was. I would follow God if there were no God to follow and that in and of itself proves to me that He exists. Capiche?

So we're supposed to enter your world (a la the Bible) but you refuse to enter ours, eh? Way to dictate the terms. :) Come now.

Love ya too,

Dave

                                          Hey Kris, welcome to my site. How'd ya find me? Anyway...I second what David said. But I'll elaborate a little. I too hold no hard feelings or resentment towards my upbringing and/or calvinism. Like Dave said, it did give us structure,  and to be honest...it is an interesting theory. Call me crazy..but I used to like researching its origins. I apologize if I have ever given that impression, but I am honestly no longer resentful whatsoever.

      I used the term neutoric for the reasons Dave gave. It does not have to be (and in fact is not) a pejorative term. I think it accurately desribes the system of belief (calvinism) And I defend my choice of the term with reasons (reasons which I have stated many many times) so the term is not fallacious.

I too wonder how your finite humaness has arrived at truth (over and against my finite humanness) I've always found that to be the most circular discussion with calvinists. Other denominations use the Bible, pray for guidance, and interperet what it says, yet come to different conclusions than calvinists..why? Whose "finite" humaness is right here? Ok let me guess your reponse... " we must "exegete" the meaning out of the passage ( find out what the author meant, the context, how the people of the day would have understood it, etc..) Ok, done. We still disagree. And many people have, many many many people.

     Here's where it gets almost futile. At this point, the calvinist typically claims some sort of phillsophical high ground (I would call it dishonesty). They insist that their interpretation of the Bible did not orgiinate or find a following with any one person or group or time period. It was always there, from the apostle Paul on. In fact, I've found many times that the term calvinist is disliked by calvinists, becase it labels/associates them with a non divinely inspired person, John Calvin. In other words, they claim NO particular interpretation, simply THE only Biblical interpretation inherent in the bible. Thus they already have the advantage over any other denomination and/or interpretation of the Bible. I've found this one point usually to be the stopping point of arguing with a calvinist.

         So to answer your challenge to use the Bible, I have.. oh so many times.... Did it accomplish anything? nothing that I've seen. I think we can all agree that when a person looks at the Bible they are not imagining, symbolizing, and internalizing the exact same thing as the next person. We all have a multitude of factors and influences that affect our interpretations of the Bible. I've been at arminian churches where their Bible reading of the day was a typical calvinist proof text, and vise versa. We can try to arrive at pure undeluted fact, but I think it's useless when you are dealing with different people, and the fact that "fact" can be more subjective then we think, especially when given a book written thousands of years ago by different authors. Not that I've saying we cannot discover truth, we can, but when two people are coming from completely opposite sides looking at the SAME information, I think a different approach can be made. I was never argued out of liberalism or calvinism, it was very much a personal journey where I discovered why chose to think what I chose to think. When one can do this, they can realize why they might have arrived at different conclusions about the same information.

     About your "god in the dock" scenario. If we do this, you do this. I could just as easily say, you are impuning the loving charachter of God by putting him in a dock, where is is compared to the more soveriegn and in control model that calvinism teaches. So, I think this charge should just be laid to rest. And to repeat what David said, we do this everyday, and I too believe that God encourages it, how else would we further discover him? And to kind of turn this around at ya (sorry :)  , the phrase and concept of "putting God in the dock" is not found in the Bible, is non inspired, and is the result of "finite human" thinking. So in essence your charge of us using non inspired arrogant "human" knowledge/discourse to disprove calvinism is negated by the fact that you yourself have used thought processes and terms outside of the Bible. This again points to the fact that imo, calvinism is dysfunctional. Calvinism damns the very "finite human" knowledge that it uses to support itself. Just read the many famous calvinist authors. So many of theire analogies, terms, descriptions are blatantly not in the Bible. The overly stressed "god in the dock" scenario is not nearly as stressed in the Bible, yet calvinist use it as if God himself had inspired it.

       The phrase "God is God' is also intelectually lazy. We obviously disagree about the nature of "God" so why state "God is God.." :) I also find this telling.. IMO .. learning about God should not be something we have to "come to grips with" or " come to a tough realization of." Calvinism assumes the preimse that everything that happens is of God's predestining, and then engages opposing viewpoints without ever even admitting and/or acknowledging that premise. I have been very careful not to say anything that requires blatant acceptance (on your part) of my assumed premises. Calvinism seems to do this to a fault, thus making to dizzingly circualr trying to logically get anywhere with a calvinist.

                   Calvinism, imo disguises (very well) a real arrogrance. (ironic that arrogance should be their most used charge against opposition.) One of calvinists premises is that human beings desires, thoughts, intuition etc.. is fallen and is not to be trusted. Yet they have arrived at truth. Ok, so they prayed for the holy spirit, and soberly read the Bible in order to correctly reveal what God is saying. Have other opposting demoniations done this? Yes. Yet they are wrong and you are right? So in other words, your finite human understanding somehow had the ability to correctly petition God to reveal the truth, while the opposition's finite understanding did not.

         Because Calvism has taught followers to mistrust every intution or idea that may creep in, there is no intelectual way out. No matter how irrational, illogical, and blatantly opposite of human experience it may be, self is not to be trusted.

          When we are sick (physically) what is the first thing we want to know? I personally want to know if I can control the sickness , or if the doctor and/or medicine can control it. When someone gets cancer, the last thing they want to find out is that it is out of control and cannot be cured or managed. It is natural to want to control variables, especially ones which may or have causes us harm. Not having control can be pretty unpleasant. Let's say I go in to the doctor. I am very very sick. I cannot figure out why. The doctor claims ignorance and just cannot figure what it is that is causing my sickness. I start to worry, even despair.I go home and throw up for a week, dehydrate, and nearly die. I struggle my way back to the doctor. When I get there, the doctor says " do not worry my son, while you were not looking ( a week ago) I injected you with a virus. Why? I ask. You need to know what it is like to be sick, because it makes the other times seem that much better. But...  Hush hush says the doctor. I shall now cure you. Me- " well at least I know what it was" and I am better now, thank you doctor!

      Dave is right, human experience tells us that such a person is a sadist. True morals exist indepently and absolutely or else there is no meaning to them. We've all heard the phrase..."the ends don't justify the means" or " two wrongs don't make a right" etc... Well what truth is there to these if they do not apply to God as well? Isn't he the source and essence of love and goodness?  You present all or nothing scenarios. Man is either worm or God, my sickness was either God or the devil, God either wrings his hand worrying about my sickness or He "lovingly" caused it and is in complete control over it. IMO that is a static understanding of the universe and God.  

              I too do not think you've been brainwashed. I respect what you have to say :) Keep it up!

     Jon