Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/5/2004 11:18 AM (GMT -6)

Adminstrative Action Required

quote:
John Earp
Postmillennialist
USA
1138 Posts
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 06:37:01 AM
-----------------------------------------------------

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

John, a "body count" of an acting-Governor of a powerful city, sometimes carrying out capital punishement on crimes condemned by the Empire is COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT. Except to you.

You are not going to be worth trying to reason with.

------------------------------------------------------

And I see you aren't trying to reason at all, PoW.

It is only completely beside the point to one who thinks someone like Calvin is above valid criticism. "Don't give me facts! That would be "completely beside the point." "Plus, they really make me mad!"

The interesting thing to me is how it has always been those who deny free will who also seek to deny the expression of the free will of others. Has there ever been a free will theologian who has advocated burning "heretics" at the stake?

How does the New Testament tell us to deal with heretics?

Titus 3:10 Reject a heretic after a first and second warning...

However, in PoW, we have someone who would defend the murderous tyranny of Calvin. No doubt he would also defend Hitler's murderous tyranny. Simply amazing.

-----------------------------------------------

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

http://revivaltheology.net

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/5/2004 11:28 AM (GMT -6)

PoW, let me make sure I've got this straight: You DON'T defend Calvin's actions?

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/5/2004 11:32 AM (GMT -6)

I have done nothing wrong, PoW. I am merely drawing the conclusion that based on your defense of the tyrannical regime of John Calvin, you would by the same token be in defense of ANY tyrannical regime, even Hitler's. How does this conclusion not follow?

I rather think that you would be happiest if no criticism of the actions of John Calvin were allowed. How odd.

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 4/5/2004 11:46 AM (GMT -6)

What the heck, PoW?! John has just as much right to speak his mind as you do, so don't go trying to get the board moderators to try to step in and hold your hand and give you a lollipop while John has to go to detention because you tattle-taled and can't handle a little criticism! Sheesh, people! Are we adults here, or what?!

Tigress

"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."

-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/5/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6)

I think saying anyone would rationalize the Hitler Regime should be a no-go.

I had this accusation made of me at the other board and I demanded and was given an apology.

Calvin was not Hitler.

dlw

Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes."

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/5/2004 3:36 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by DLW

I think saying anyone would rationalize the Hitler Regime should be a no-go.

I had this accusation made of me at the other board and I demanded and was given an apology.

Calvin was not Hitler.

dlw

I used the subjunctive tense, David. If one can justify Calvin's actions based on his political position and "the times he lived in," then one can also just as easily justify Hitler's crimes, however more widespread Hitler's crimes became.

I agree Hitler's evil was more widespread due to the technologies and political power at his disposal, but I am stunned that anyone cannot see how Hitleresque John Calvin actually was. I can only conclude that those who deny such are in fact in extreme denial themselves.

By the way, LOTS of professing Christians in Germany justified the Hitler regime in its day.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

ataraxia
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67

Posted 4/5/2004 6:20 PM (GMT -6)

No official administrative action is required here. This is not a big issue, and after miss-handling the Carlie thread I'm a bit reluctant to intervene. So let me offer some advice.

John seems to be perfectly in his right (though I think he’s substantially wrong) to claim that HE thinks defending Calvin’s political philosophy logically entails defending Hitler’s genocide of Jews. That’s an opinion which he’s entitled to hold. I happen to think he’s dead wrong about this, but he has the right to be wrong.

But John, you could word yourself a bit more carefully. In spite of knowing what you mean, it seems to me you would avoid needlessly offending anyone had you said, “It seems to me that POW’s view on this would also be consistent with defending Hitler…” POW would have no reason for complaint. Though I find it difficult to imagine your thinking why this would be true, and though I defend your right to express your opinion on it, were you to address the “view” and not the “person” you’d do better. As it is, your (red) highlightened statement addresses POW and not his view, and does so pretty matter-of-factly. You simply claimed that POW defends Hitler ("In Pow we have..."). Yes you said "if" later, but somehow that bit of grammar doesn't do much (since POW apparently fulfills the condition).

I don't want to get into this debate. I'm just asking you, John, to address the view and not the person. I can understand POW's offense. When somebody says I hurt their feelings, it's fine to say I don't understand how given my meaning and intentions, or to offer up grammar as proof that I didn't mean what THEY thought I meant, but it's also curtious to apologize for having offended their feelings even unintentionally.

The bell just rang, so you may come out swinging for another round.

ataraxia

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/5/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by ataraxia
John seems to be perfectly in his right (though I think he’s substantially wrong) to claim that HE thinks defending Calvin’s political philosophy logically entails defending Hitler’s genocide of Jews.

Hi ataraxia,

Thanks for your input. I think you have misunderstood my view, however. I am NOT saying that "defending Calvin's political philosophy logically entails defending Hitler's genocide of Jews." I am definitely not saying that at all.

I used the subjunctive "would" in my original post, thus denoting a logical possibility, though not a complete certainty:

quote:
However, in PoW, we have someone who would defend the murderous tyranny of Calvin. No doubt he would also defend Hitler's murderous tyranny. Simply amazing.

My use of "would" denotes "perhaps/if/might." I obviously do not believe PoW would in fact defend Hitler, and by the same standard of morality, I am at a complete loss to see HOW he can possibly dismiss Calvin's actions as having no bearing upon Calvin's teachings. Something about faith without works...

What I am saying is that to defend Calvin's ACTIONS (and to act as if they have no bearing on Calvin's theology/philosophy, as PoW asserts) in having many of his enemies burned at the stake, their views suppressed, and their books burned, etc., simply because they had the audacity to DISAGREE with Calvin, and simply because Calvin had the political power to persecute those with whom he differed, to justify these crimes against humanity on the grounds of his political position and/or "the times in which he lived" is really no different than if one were to try to justify Hitler's actions, though of course Hitler's crimes against humanity were much greater in extent, though not in kind.

As to PoW, he has incorrectly inferred that somehow I am saying he has no morality if he doesn't condemn Calvin's actions, when in fact what I have been trying to do is APPEAL to whatever sense of morality he does have! How can anyone do as PoW has done so consistently on this board (both now and in the past) and defend Calvin as some kind of great Christian?!?!

This is why I felt constrained to provoke PoW's thought (and person) with the comparison of Calvin to Hitler. Certainly Calvin is guilty of far fewer crimes against humanity than Hitler is, but the KIND of crimes they are guilty of is quite similar; i.e., having political/religious dissidents put to death simply and ONLY for their political/religious views.

As to offending PoW, I find his insistence that Calvin is some kind of great Christian leader whom we should respect and revere to be offensive in the extreme. Where's PoW's apology to me? And since when is exposing spiritual wickedness in high places something one should apologize for? In my opinion, people who expect me to revere such a MONSTER as Calvin DESERVE to be offended by the true character of John Calvin exposed.

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 4/6/2004 4:23 AM (GMT -6)

This post makes me wonder: are we allowed to challenge another person's belief if it what me say might offend them...or perhaps if there is something within their belief system that is offensive.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/6/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6)

If this can be taken sincerely...

I noticed the word "offended" one of the posts above (different from feel'n's use of it), that was the classic "PC" statement. Things of THAT ilk are of no concern to me. "PC" offendednesses are just creations of one's own subjective-self.

What concerned me was actual damage. DLW saw that.

So, Feel'n friend; I agree with what you are saying, but have to point out that the thread started off with something else.

Damage is evil. Anger is sin. Saying "racha" (you fool) puts one in danger--our Lord says.

The other thread is just to distastful to participate in, judging from the last few posts.

But what this thread is about is far worse.

I think the administrator acted properly. But so did I. And the "offending" one got his chance to do some thinking.

- Peace

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 4/6/2004 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

Frankly POW the fact that you had to make a post of this calls into question for me any sincerity about any "damage" caused to your person. To me it seems more of a "look what is being done to me" scream than to point out any hurt "inflicted" on you. I believe we are big boys and girls here and there is a general "toughness" that is required to live a human life. I am not an expert on Calvin, but if the "body count" statistics are true, then anyone defending him should deal with. Or not defend him.
I wonder why you simply didn't contact John personally and express your concerns about this. Instead, what you did smacks of grandstanding to me.
BTW, yes, the thread started off with something else...but, Pow, you are one of those who steered it in the other direction...take responsibility for that!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/6/2004 6:33 AM (GMT -6)

feelinginahole, PoW addressed you with consideration above. But you responded harshly.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/6/2004 6:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by echo

feelinginahole, PoW addressed you with consideration above. But you responded harshly.

Is there an echo in here?

in here?

here?

?

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 4/6/2004 7:18 AM (GMT -6)

(

) Not unlike when my children throw a tantrum over a "preceived" wrong that they had a part in dealing out...

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/6/2004 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

www.lordofthepeeps.com/lotp/fotp.html

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:13 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual