Calvinism: A cancer on Christianity

[TheMightyFavog]

It's a cancer that has metastasized into such evils as the Salem Witch Trials, Jim Crow, Apartheid, the "Screw everyone else, I got mine" mentality in the United States, and the modern Christian Right.

[KittyWampus]

1. How so? Not disagreeing with you and do know what you are referring to. But you give no insight

at all in your post.

Now I would suggest that Christianity took a wrong turn much further back in history. When Paul became the central figure rather than the teachings of the Christ figure.

[TheMightyFavog]

4. I got the impressions from Reading Republican Gommorah, and Deer Hunting With Jesus...

Then the whole idea just clicked in my head.

[KittyWampus]

11. what "whole idea"? It'd be nice if you defined Calvinism in your post and went into any depth

at all about the role that Philosophical outlook had in the casting of modern Christianity.

Not arguing with you but wishing you'd share a little more background to enrich the conversation.

[cbdo2007]

15. I don't know much about Calvinism but I agree with you about Paul

doing things his own way rather than how Jesus taught and nowadays it is generally his teachings and form of church they are copying which contradict what Jesus taught.

Notice on most issues how most churches nowadays refer to one of Paul's letters or even to specific, vague passages in the Old Testament rather than Jesus' teachings and words.

[madrchsod]

2. yup.....

[anonymous171]

3. Most forms of protestantism are like that.

It is no coincidence that Protestantism formed around the same time that Capitalism did.

[KittyWampus]

6. one could also point out that Protestantism formed around the same time as the Middle Class

and societies became more democratic.

[enlightenment]

14. Not really, KittyWampus.

The 'middle class' didn't really coalesce as a recognized cultural phenomenon until considerably after the advent of Protestantism.

[happyslug]

19. We are into arguments that require defining what is the "Middle Class".

"The Middle Class" as used prior to WWII (And still used in most of the world outside of the US) means those people who are NOT of the "Nobility", i.e. the Richest of the Rich (The Richest of the Rich is about 2% of the Population) but also not the peasantry (which in the Middle Ages was 98% of the Population). The raise of industry, Commerce etc lead to the rise of people with money who also did NOT own huge tracts of land. These were the "Middle Class" of the late Middle Ages, Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and even today. These are people, who do to their control of the banks, corporation, Commerce, Industry and Trade end up controlling most of the wealth created since the Middle ages (The old nobility controlled the land, which was the main source of wealth prior to the Renaissance).

This "Middle Class" ended up about 10% of the population and as we entered the Renaissance, and then the Reformation they slowly took over control of the Government for they had the most money to spend (The old nobility often had more wealth, but most of it was tied up in land that the old nobility could not sell, thus cash was in the hands of the "Middle Class". In many ways the English Civil War, the Wars of the Reformation, and even the French Revolution were conflicts caused by the growing struggle between the Middle Class and the old Nobility (With the peasants off to the side picking up scraps from both sides, but also repressed by both sides). When the peasants wanted further "reform" under Luther, Luther agreed with his middle class supporters that such peasants had to be suppressed. When Henry VIII decided to steal all the money from the Catholic Church and give it to his supporters, both the old Nobility and the Middle Class agrees to suppress the resulting Peasant revolts. Queen Elizabeth kept this process up, through she made some efforts to protect the peasants/Working class stiffs. When the Middle Class had defeated the old Nobility in the English Civil War, the Middle Class was willing to make peace with the old Nobility and keep King Charles I on the throne, till Charles decided to seat support from the remaining Catholics in his Kingdom, who still controlled, and thus represented the peasants/working class (The peasants supported the Catholics for neither the High Church of the Nobility, nor the low Church of the Middle Class protected their interests, thus the Catholic Church was who the peasants supported when the peasants could, and for most of the period the peasants were kept in their place needing "passes" from their local lords to move around even in England till the time of the American Revolution.

I go into the above to show what was meant the by term "Middle Class" as that term was used prior to WWII. It is NOT 90% of the population but that 10% of the population that controls Commerce, Banking, Industry, Transportation etc in this country. The Old Nobility merged with it after the Reformation with some of the old Middle Class becoming the richest of the rich, while some nobles went down into the Middle Class themselves. Thus the Reformation was the result of the growth of the Middle Class, but NOT the Middle Class as we use that term today in the US.

When I was in Collage in the 1970s one of my Professors used an economic book that showed the result of two polls. The First Polls asked people what class were their in. The exact numbers escape me, but it was like 80% of those people polled called themselves "Middle Class" not poor or Rich. Now the second poll added a fourth category, "Working Class". With that addition just about half of the people who had called themselves "Middle Class" called themselves "Working Class" instead. In Europe that is the more common split, i.e NOT Poor, Middle Class and Rich, but Poor, Working Class, Middle Class and Rich. It is in the US (And to a more limited extend Canada and Britain) common practice to use the term Middle Class to include BOTH working Class and Upper Middle Class Groups (The term Upper Middle Class is used in the US to describe that part of the population that used to be called Middle Class before WWII).

Now, part of the reason for the broad definition of Middle Class in the US is do to a decision among the rich and Upper Middle Class that they must separate the Working Class from the Democratic Party. Basically this was done by imposing Middle Class Ideas onto the Public School System. To mention anything the benefited the Rich as benefiting the Middle Class and implying that includes the Working Class (even when the change was anti-working class). To leave the unions brag that they were bring the Working Class up to "Middle Class" standard, knowing that such language could later be used to divide the union membership away from the Democratic Party (I.e. saying the Middle Class oppose anything that benefit Unions for example).

This policy continues today, the Right Wing uses the term "Middle Class" to mean the Upper middle Class BUT knowing most people call themselves Middle Class (I have had people on Welfare call themselves Middle Class and by ANYONE'S definition if you are on Welfare you are POOR not Middle Class, I bring this up to show how INGRAIN the term Middle Class is in American Culture AND do to that fact how easy it is to use that work to mean everyone and no one).

Yes, what we Americans call the "Middle Class" did not from till after WWII, but the US had a Middle Class as soon as this country was settled but like Europe never counted over 10% of the Population AND included the "Rich" as that term came to be used in the US. Thus, while the modern term "Middle Class" was NOT defined till after WWII (And that Definition was so broad it includes everyone in the US, even people on Welfare) what most people call the "Upper Middle Class" as opposed to the "Working Class" has existed since before the Protestant Reformation and was known as the "Middle Class" from about 1300 till today in most of the World. Just because the word means EVERYONE today in the US does NOT mean it did not have a meaning from 1300-1945 that was well known to people of those times AND today, even through the meaning was substantially narrower then how the term is used today.

[TrogL]

5. Don't forget "Prosperity Gospel"

[TheMightyFavog]

9. Shit, forgot about that one.

Thanks.

[Blue Owl]

7. Calvinism...

It just sounds so cool and progressive.

NOT!

:crazy:

[sharesunited]

8. Justification by faith alone is a core doctrine.

You cannot earn your way into heaven by good works or by leading a good life.

You can only gain salvation by becoming "born again."

And that's ALL you need.

[happyslug]

22. That is why St Paul is followed by St James in the Bible

St James repeats the comments made by Christ (As reported in the Gospels) that one can NOT get to heaven on Faith alone but MUST do "good works". St James rejects faith without "Good Works". The collectors of the modern Bible liked the writings of St Paul but also knew the errors he made and thus it was a deliberate choice to follow the Writings of St Paul with St James. There is a lot of Good in St Paul but the biggest error is his claim that one can be a follower of Christ on Faith alone, a concept the Catholic Church rejected at that time and rejects to this day.

Both Luther (Who was educated as a Catholic Priest) and Calvin (Who was NOT a Catholic Priest before he broke with the Catholic Church) both made strong allegiance with St Paul and his doctrine of salvation by Faith alone. The problem both had was with St James and Christ's own statements that Good Works are required. This was made easier by the Middle Ages Catholic Doctrine that "Good Works" included prays for the dead and others (This was the main source of revenue for the Monasteries, offering prays for the Kings and Nobles of the time period to offset they many crimes, the prays were "good works" by the Monks AND giving money to the Monks for such prays were "Good works" by the King or Noble who paid them to offer the prays). In many ways Luther's attack on "Good Works" reflected an attack on such "Good Works" NOT acts that help other people (And the reason Luther had so much support from the growing Middle Class was Luther's teachings permitted the various States to take over the Monasteries and divide the land the Monasteries were on among people, mostly the Growing Middle Class). Calvin's approach to "Good Works" was that it was restricted to Charity, which is a requirement of any of the Reform Churches that trace themselves back to Calvin (Modern Presbyterianism, Congregationalism etc). Calvin also attacked the lands held by the Church and distributed such lands among his supporters .

The above was followed even in Catholic Countries such as France after 1789 and Mexico, after 1868 where the revolutionaries, once in power, slowly took over the Church's land and distributed among their supporters. The peasants revolted against those new Middle Class owners in 1912. This set up a pattern throughout Latin America. A growing set of Presbyterians (and Fundamentalists) who represent the Middle Class of those states against the priest supported peasants (The Catholic Bishops of those states tend to be outside this dispute, mostly for they are also of the same Middle Class that oppose the rights of the Peasants). The Peasants (and their local priests) tend to want "Good Works" (And since the Reformation the Catholic Church has down played Monks praying for someone's sole) while the Fundamentalist Middle Class are happy with salvation by faith alone.

One last comment on St Paul. One commentator made a comment that if ST Paul knew how his letters were to be used long after he was dead, he would have been a lot more careful when writing them. Many of the Writings of St Paul was to address certain problems that had aroused within the church, for example his comments that "Women should be quite in Church". That phase was NOT to shut women up (HE actually wrote a another letter to a local Church to accept a female as speaking for him, if he wanted ALL women to be quite, why sent a woman to preach? Thus the term "Women should be quite in Church" must be interpreted in the context of the problem it was made in context of. The problem was in Greek life men and women were taught in different schools by different teachers (men by men, women by women). When points of theology arouse the only time women had the chance to ask about it with a person who had discussed the concept with others from other congregations was in Church, so some women were asking question during the mass it was disturbing the mass. Once you know this was the problem St Paul was addressing, St Paul's statement as to women being quite can be seen as more a statement women should wait till AFTER the mass to ask questions NOT that they were NOT to speak at all. Soon afterward the Church adopted the policy of teaching religious concepts to both sexes at the same time, that ended the situation where women were getting an inferior education and thus St Paul's comment was NOT made again for the problem it was design to solve had be solved (Separate is inherently unequal, something the US Supreme Court took 56 years to determine, the time difference between Plessy vs Ferguson, in 1898. and Brown vs Board of Education, in 1954).

The other big error attributed to St Paul is his attack on Homosexuals. The problem is the only Homosexuals he attacked was in a letter to a diocese located in a city whose main business was a temple that worshiped the ancient Greek gods by permitting men to have sex with young boys. The young boys had NOT choice in the sex for their were slaves owned by the temple. The men paid the priest at the temple and then had sex with the boys. It is this type of Homosexuality that St Paul attacks so viciously. In told the Christians in that town NOT to have anything to do with the temple for it was an evil place for the above stated reasons. St Paul was writing in Greek and knew Greek. The Greek of his time period had at least three words for Homosexual, St Paul clearly used the term for a man having sex with a young boy. When Translated to English, the term homosexual was used, but the three types were know at the time St Paul wrote his comments, in the Middle Ages and even when the King James translation took place. For some reason the translators decided just to use the term Homosexual without any comments on the exact type. Why this is so is unknown for King James was known to be a Homosexual himself. It might be that the translator wanted to avoid the whole debate and used Homosexual (or its more common English terms of the period), it might just be they were to lazy and did NOT want to have to make comments on the terms they used (Leaving that up to the person using the Bible, the common practice for the previous 1000 years).

A similar problem arouse with the Ten Commandments and "Thou Shall not Kill". A more exact translation from the Hebrew would be "You shall NOT Murder or Commit Manslaughter" for the ancient Hebrew Word used in that Commandment covered both Murder and Manslaughter but not self-defense OR any other form of killing (i.e. Military operations). Killing may have been picked for it was a simple word that covered both murder and manslaughter AND the exceptions to killing could be taught as exceptions (This was probably done do to the fact King James had been the intended victim of the Gunpowder Plot and he wanted people to be told NOT to kill except when permitted to do so as opposed to just being restricted from Murder and Manslaughter).

Just comments on St Paul and his letters and how those letters have been used since St Paul wrote them and to attempt to place them in their proper place within the Christian Bible.

[struggle4progress]

54. Of Calvinism? Surely you jest.

... "God preordained...a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation." John Calvin
... This is the concept of predestination: that God has divided humanity into two groups. One group is "the elected." It includes all those whom God has chosen to make knowledgeable about himself. The rest will remain ignorant of God, and the Gospel. They are damned and will spend eternity in Hell without any hope of mercy or cessation of the extreme tortures. God made this selection before the universe was created, and thus before any humans existed ... http://www.religioustolerance.org/calvinism.htm

[enlightenment]

10. Really?

I'll buy the Witch Trials, but the rest? Not many "Calvinists" in the Jim Crow south, so much. A boatload of Baptists, starting pretty early on (early, early 1800's) though . . .

If you want to make a sweeping generalization, you might want to go with "Protestantism" instead.

:evilgrin:

[TheMightyFavog]

12. Not all protestants are bad.

The ELCA aren't bad folks. Except for the whole lutefisk suppers and the serving of jello with salad dressing thing. :puke:

[enlightenment]

17. Depends on your point of view, I suppose -

I'm just saying that you are erroneously singling out a single sect of Protestantism and blaming them for things that they really didn't 'drive' (so to speak).

Conflation drives historians nuts . . .

[Gman2]

13. Yes, it leads to torture.

That you are in a position to be harmed by christians, proves that God is not protecting you. If you found favor with God, you would not have us churchies doing you harm. It leads to the callous taunts of the Haitian people. It IS mans inhumanity to man. Every man thinks he is luckier than most. He will remain healthy etc. I saw an extreme example of this. In South Africa, 40% of the people have aids. But not one child in a group of fifty knew ONE person. It is verbotten to discuss.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eric Condon]

18. I personally follow my own version of Calvinism

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

23. Did Calvinism cause the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, too?

Damn, that's amazing for its influence to reach back hundreds of years before Calvin!

[rug]

24. The Church in the U.S. owes more to Calvin than to Torquemada.

[trotsky]

26. So? You are trying to change the subject, as usual.

The OP said Calvinism was a "cancer on Christianity." But Christianity was responsible for some pretty heinous actions and philosophies long before Calvin came on the scene. Now if you actually have something of substance to contribute - for once - by all means, go ahead.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. Well, John Calvin barbecued the first Unitarian.

In Geneva, invited Michael Servetus there for a debate. Then he was recognized and arrested in the back of a church where he had gone to hear Calvin speak. The local church council decided to barbecue him and copies of his book at his feet.

The Catholics did a whole lot of barbecuing witches and assorted heretics, like Joan of Arc, long before the Protestants came on the scene. You got four different Inquisitions, barbecuing Giordano Bruno, imprisoning Galileo, imprisoning Johannes Kepler's mother because she told him a story about going to the moon.

Then you got the Crusades, which were anti-Islam.

The Pilgrims in England were persecuted; they moved to New England and started oppressing the natives.

Henry VIII started the Anglican church because he wanted a divorce; Thomas More was killed, and many others because of the merger of state power with Anglican church power. They seized monasteries and killed Catholics & Jesuits. This violence is still going on in Northern Ireland. The Catholics were not trusted because they were loyal to the Pope instead of to the Crown of England, which is the head of the Anglican Church and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterianism).

As far as I am concerned, they are ALL messed up in their cruelty and irrationality.

Oh, and as far as relying on the words of Paul, instead of those sweet, pure, totally GOOD words of Jesus (I'm being sarcastic), what do you think of these sweet, pure, kind, compassionate and loving words of Jesus???

From the Book of Matthew:

# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# "The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

And that's only ONE of the Gospels!!!

Jesus was not a nice guy, if he said all this stuff. If he did say all this stuff he is not worthy to be worshiped or even to be used as a guide to morality. Nobody is sure if he even existed or not as there is no independent evidence of him outside of the bible. And he is no different in character and life than Mithra, Apollo, and many other gods.

The problem is not Paul, although he was a woman hating, sex hating jerk. The problem is the total mess of sources, none of which are reliable, slapped together and edited for political power by the Council of Nicaea. None of the NT was written while the alleged Jesus was alive.

The Abrahamic religions, because of their endorsement of violence against non-believers, are a terrible guide to morality.

Hinduism and Buddhism don't have those contradictory instructions in them. I know. I have studied the Hindu Scriptures and the Pali Canon of Gautama the Buddha.

[struggle4progress]

29. Your history is sloppy, and your reading of the gospels dull and ideological

The Catholic Church, for example, did not burn St Joan; the English, whom she had chased from France, did

And if the gospels do not speak to you then why pretend to interpret them, since you are, of course, completely free to ignore them?

[darkstar3]

30. So just because we don't necessarily believe in it,

that means that it's none of our business?

Do you believe there are or were women in this world called Sirens, or one-eyed giants? I'm certain that you do not, and neither does the vast majority of the populous, yet we still read Homer's works and interpret the symbolism contained therein.

I'm getting tired of hearing that atheists have no business discussing religion, especially on a nominally progressive board.

[struggle4progress]

33. You've seen me post repeatedly here material written by atheists that I found interesting

and worthy of attention. Search for Bloch or Kautsky, for example. I do not object to people applying scientific methods to religious texts: serious use of techniques from anthropology, economics, history, literary criticism, psychology, and philosophy is all entirely fair. On the other hand, I find it offensive when people simply cherry-pick one quote after another without any context in order to insist upon ugly readings motivated only by ideology. No one will offend me at all by claiming to believe the texts are entirely human works or by a careful examination of mythic elements in the texts or by doubting whether the texts might not be historical. But if the intent is merely to sneer, there is little chance I can learn anything from it, and I think it is appropriate for me to call the behavior boorish and juvenile

And I consider it boorish and juvenile of you, in particular, to put words in my mouth. I have never said anything like "atheists have no business discussing religion," and you know it. I object, not to atheists discussing religion, but rather to atheists asserting starkly, smugly and with a smirk, what a religion means, much in the same way that I object to other fundamentalists asserting starkly, smugly and with a smirk, what a religion means

[darkstar3]

38. Boorish and Juvenile? I think not.

I have put no words into your mouth. I give you the offensive quote:
And if the gospels do not speak to you then why pretend to interpret them, since you are, of course, completely free to ignore them?

So perhaps you can explain to me how ^^^this^^^ "atheists have no business here" statement jives at all with the claims you are now making?

[darkstar3]

56. Cat got your tongue? n/t

[struggle4progress]

57. For two millennia, the imperfect have retold the gospel to the imperfect,

but that gospel itself has never changed: there is one way for the finite and imperfect to honor the unseen Infinite and Perfect -- by loving our neighbors. "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do that to me." You may, of course, object that you heard this from people who did not themselves live up to its promise very well; you may object that you heard it jumbled with fantastic stories that you find difficult to believe; you may object in other ways. Most such objections do not interest me much: the core message is there for us to choose or refuse; in my view, anyone who rejects it is a thirsty traveler who sneers at a clean fresh spring and walks away, as of course, is the right of any poor misguided soul. But it is an entirely different thing to lie that the gospel teaches hate -- it is like posting signs "This water is poison" at a safe oasis in the desert, so that anyone who arrives fears to be refreshed

[trotsky]

58. That rambling paragraph is not even close to an answer for the question you were asked.

Try again.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. The English king was Catholic at the time.

She was tried for heresy before a church court headed by Bishop Pierre Cauchon.

This was well before Henry VIII and the split with Catholicism.

My history is not sloppy, yours is. Since the King of England was Catholic and church/state power were merged at that time, Joan was tried at Rouen, the military headquarters in France for the English king, Henry VI.

The gospels themselves are "dull and ideological".

I'll put my college religion courses up against anybody's.

[struggle4progress]

32. As I said, your history is sloppy. Church and state power were not merged at the time,

in either England or France. The church schism, which produced dual papacies, though nominally settled in 1417, continued somewhat until several years after the death of Joan; the case of Pope Benedict XIII was still a rather recent memory; and there were still continuing claimants to the Avignon papacy. Cauchon had English partisan commitments and so a strong interest in proving Joan's consecration of Charles illegitimate. Joan explicitly complained at her trial that everyone involved was on the English side, and in fact England financed the trial. Cauchon's political use of church forms for partisan purposes produced strong enough distaste that more than two decades later the disgust had not died down: after the Hundred Years War finally ended in 1453, Pope Calixtus felt obliged to convene a re-examination of the case in 1455, upon which the whole affair was condemned as unjust

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. This is merging of political and state power. Your own statement.

"Cauchon's political use of church forms for partisan purposes"

The English monarch would not have been able to use Cauchon as a representative to carry out his wishes against France, had the English not been Catholic at the time. That's a merger of church and state power when you have an ecclesiastical trial, and there is no mechanism in place for a civil trial by an impartial government.

A civil court would not be able to charge Joan with heresy. That's a religious charge, not a civil law, that was used by the British as an excuse to try and execute her and remove the Dauphin from the throne and replace him with the person favored by the British.


The Catholics and the Protestants have all done horrible things to people over the centuries. I see no reason why Calvinism is any better or any worse at persecution. If they have persecuted fewer people than the Catholics, it is probably because the Catholics are the world's oldest bureaucracy.
Protestantism did not spring up until Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII were alive.

[struggle4progress]

55. The English partisans were determined to trump up some charge and would have done so,

one way or another; that just happens to be the form they chose

[Angry Dragon]

50. Perhaps you need to read more

The English captured her and turned her over to the church. If you are going to defend the church then you need to have the church take responsibility for the crimes they have brought upon mankind.

As far as reading and interpreting the gospels I thought god put them there for all to read.

I think the church teaches that we are all the children of god ......... so then I am the Son of God

[struggle4progress]

53. No, the English captured her and handed her over to an English clerical partisan,

who (despite immediate objections he lacked of jurisdiction in the matter) staged a "trial" by partisan stooges, refused to cooperate with any requests for an impartial inquiry, and engineered her burning without allowing any defense counsel or any appeal

... Of the 42 lawyers at her trial, 39 had asked for leniency and an appeal to a higher church court not under the thumb of the English ... http://www.historynet.com/hundred-years-war-joan-of-arc-and-the-siege-of-orleans.htm/1

Rome's eventual official investigation in the matter, some years later, after the military chaos had subsided, concluded that Cauchon had no jurisdiction and that the whole affair had bene a charade

[rug]

34. The subject was the U.S. Church, not the Crusades.

As usual, your agenda prevents a discussion. Your incivility is simply an indelible character trait.

[trotsky]

35. Actually, the subject was: "Calvinism: A cancer on Christianity"

And I simply showed that Christianity as a religion had a few malignant growths long before Calvin came on the scene. Rather than actually address that point, you attempt to change the subject. Again. And for you to lecture someone else on incivility, now that's comedy gold.

[rug]

36. That's why it referenced Jim Crow and segregation.

But you just can't help yourself in your tired Christianity bashing. I expect to see you pop up in a Cooking group thread about avocados and denounce the Pope's shoes.

[uberllama42]

37. It referred to Apartheid

which you will recall was a segregation policy in South Africa, not the United States. It would seem that, based solely on the content of the OP, the intended topic is the effect of Calvinism in all countries. Your protest is baseless.

[trotsky]

40. Careful there, don't aggravate him with facts.

Stating facts is bashing Christianity, you know.

[rug]

41. I must have missed the inquisition reference in the OP.

Neertheless, you've demonstrated the point.

[trotsky]

39. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was called "Christianity bashing"...

to simply point out that the Crusades and the Inquisition happened, and that they were bad things. You must agree with the OP, that Calvinism alone was responsible for the negatives associated with your religion. Everything else is rainbows, unicorns, funny hats, and sunshine!

[rug]

42. The Armenian genocide happened also. That, as well, is off point.

The problem with habitual hatred is that you soon fail to realize what you're doing. You've gotten to the point where you equate a legitimate comment about Calvin with unicorns and hats. Can't you pick your scabs privately?

[trotsky]

43. So, does stating facts constitute "Christianity bashing"?

Please point out *exactly* what I said that would properly be termed "Christianity bashing." You've accused me of doing so, and I am asking you to back up your claim. You may choose to try and further derail the discussion into the muck of personal attacks that you prefer, or you can just answer the question.

Go ahead.

[rug]

44. Interjecting gratuitous references to the Inquisition and the Crusades into a thread about Calvin

serves no other purpose.

It's as slimey and dishonest as injecting pedophilic priests into any topic that tangentially concerns the Church.

You know it as well as I so batting your eyelashes does not disguise it.

Now, if you're so offended by personal references, I advise you not to include them when responding in the first place.

[trotsky]

45. So no, you have nothing at all to prove I was "bashing Christianity."

The OP wanted to blame Calvinism for being a "cancer" on Christianity. It is a perfectly reasonable response to point out the malignant growths BEFORE Calvin, despite your petty personal protestations.

You seem so consumed with anger and hatred, you can't even engage in a discussion with someone who believes differently than you. I've been trying, but have been met with nothing but snipes and continuing personal attacks. Do you want to continue in that vein? Or do you want to take the high road, and admit that I made a valid point, and end it here and now?

Ball's in your court. Can you act like a reasonable, polite human being or will it be more venom? What would Jesus do?

[rug]

46. Your entire posting record in this forum proves that.

As does your last sentence.

I doubt that you would recognize a high road if you were enveloped in clouds.

[darkstar3]

47. Says the sewer rat. n/t

[rug]

51. I was waiting for you to crawl up into this thread.

[trotsky]

49. Let the record state that I made an honest, civil effort with you.

Clearly it wasn't worth my time. Thanks for confirming some of the worst Christian stereotypes.

[rug]

52. You're welcome.

As to you, my need for confirmation was met a long time ago.

[darkstar3]

25. Dislike. n/t

[onager]

28. And finally, for the ironically inclined...

From your friendly neighborhood fundamentalist atheist.

[frogmarch]

59. Regarding the Salem witch trials,

at least the Calvinists were hanging only each other. Oh wait. And two dogs - witches' familiars, don't you know.

A distant great-grandmother of mine was hanged as a witch in Salem, as were a long-ago aunt of mine and two cousins. A distant great-grandfather of mine was one of the jurors, and several of my distant uncles and aunts testified against some of the accused.

Quakers were treated like crap by the Calvinists, but I don't think victims of the Salem insanity involved anyone but Calvinists, except for the slave woman, Tituba, who was accused of witchcraft and "confessed," thereby saving her life.

It astounds me that even today some people believe in witches. I don't mean Wiccans, but old style, pole riding, fornicating-with-the devil witches. My Baptist sister-in-law believes that some of the Salem victims probably were witches. Gah!


Anyway...Calvinists and others like them. x(

[Manifestor_of_Light]

60. John Calvin hanged Michael Servetus for being a heretic.

Servetus being a doctor, a scientist and the first known Unitarian Christian.