> Yes, I realize that Calvinists all say that their fatalistic universe is ultimately just, but to do so they also have to redefine “just” in a way that makes the eternal conscious torment of the vast majority of the human species something that could be defended as justice, and, well, at that point they’ve lost me.

@TRiG Maybe one person's definition of 'just' is not the same as another person's definition of 'just'.

@Anonymous Well, quite.

The Calvinist deity is not "just" as I understand the term.

Or loving, either.

@Anonymous can I caution you not to put too much faith in anyone's anonymity on the internet, whether they use real-looking names or not?

@Anonymous Does it matter much what anyone's definition of 'just' is if God exists? By analogy, in an earthly courtroom, there is no point trying to persuade a judge that the law you have broken is unjust, is there? S/he will judge according to the law of the land.

@JackDouglas In the United States, people have the right to make assembly and protest. I think that's one good thing about being American than being British (ruled by a monarch).

Hypothetically, at least.

Real people may not be educated in their own constitutional rights.

@JackDouglas Even if the law is unjust, I suppose the judge will still judge based on the defendant and his obedience to the established law.

love when one of my answers goes from no way, to maybe, to he very well might have.

@JackDouglas Ah, so you're redefining words.

If you have to say "God is just, but by a different definition of justice" or "God is loving, but by a different definition of love", how is that fundamentally different from saying that God is not just or loving, but rather is "just" and "loving"?

@TRiG In your terms, it isn't, and it couldn't be if you accept whatever the current average accepted meaning of the words: because if God is God, then he doesn't change, whereas culture and human ideas of right and wrong do. Unless you have some other absolute definition?

@JackDouglas the idea would be that Christians base what is Just and what is True off of the truth and justice characteristics of God.

@waxeagle or they tend towards that understanding from whatever starting position they had before beginning to submit to God?

@TRiG It seems fairly plain to me that normal human view of what is meant by 'justice' is self-evidently off-base: otherwise our courts would be a good deal less busy.

@JackDouglas yeah, we can't help but see God through whatever cultural context we exist in

I like reading Fred Clark, but I do think he is incorrect about Calvinism (as a broad system). I understand he has had bad experiences with some people who march under the Calvinist banner. But the idea is not wrong just because some of its adherents are nasty - sometimes in ways which are attributable to Calvinist distinctives, and other times not so much.

@JamesT Calvinists are lovely and fluffy like bunny rabbits

if they aren't they must be racked with doubt about whether they are elect or not :)

The bunnies should just hop along as best they can because there's nothing they can do to make themselves elect or unelect.

Also they should behave towards other bunnies as Jesus would, not because they hope to become elect, but because that is what good fluffy bunnies ought to do anyway.

Well, I'm a Calvinist and I don't believe either of those statements are true

but such is life...

the bunny trusts that if they were brought to a place where they were able to acknowledge their election that they are elect.

that's more like it :)

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

Ive often wondered....if Calvinism is the right way...then why bother doing anything...why be an evangelist or missionary....why spread the gospel throught the world...??? On another note, If I delete an answer what does that do to my standing???

@rob The book of James still exists for one thing

@rob depends on the answer, if it's over 60 days old and has a score of +3 or better, nothing

else you lose (or gain) whatever reputation you gained (or lost)

@rob Because the outworking of faith is the evidence of election. What grounds would any Calvinist who took that view have for presuming he is saved?

I was about to say that too :)

(though not as eloquently)

So to prove your elect...not that the work will draw anymore into the "family" if their not elect. Ive studied it much...I just cant get it to plum.

@rob essentially. The way the Calvinist sees it, a desire to do "Good Works" is evidence of faith

@wax eagle, here is the problem...I formatted an answer incorrectly, the answer wasnt wrong just not according to "SE Hoyal" and I recived so far a -4, I have since fixed it to the appropreate format, edited it, but it still stands at -4. Would I have been better to just delete the answer and reposted. As I have recived no credit for learning and fixing the problem.

@rob link?

@wax eagle, its on another SE page.

Can i link it here?

sure

Ok i will get back to you on that.

Also isnt the "good works" and evidence of faith in all christian religion.

@rob more or less?

Yeah...thats why I cant get it to plum...hahaha...

@rob that would still get downvoted there IMO

you don't have the relevant quote from the wikia article (unless that is it?), you don't have much original text showing how it's relevant, and I'm not sure what more it's adding past BESW's answer

I C....how can I do so well here and not there? I sighted my facts just like i was suppose to...and while this is make belive with no canon so anything goes with this i did post the links and the relevant quotes or synopsis of the long post it wouldnt let me copy...

@rob see how BESW wrote his answer? You could learn a lot from that

(full disclosure, I hang and chat with BESW on RPG.SE, he's a cool dude)

But that kind of writing is what we should all be aiming for, mostly our own words with links sprinkled in to support what we say, sparing use of quotations

Nothing in this sci fi story is accepted as canon and every thing is accepted as canon. But BESW didnt sight anything but SE points nothing outside the fourm...I brought in outside reference.

Thats whst I had at first my own words with some links...you did see in the comments how that worked out...its why I changed it.

In most cases its preferable to edit your answer to be better. I'd edit it into shape (remove the current quotations, write an intro, a conclusion, use quotations from the wiki, and make sure to use it as a proper link), then I'd notify the major commenters in your answer that you've edited and for them to review it. I'd bet you see some downvotes reversed

Ok ok wax eagle...thats just what I needed to know!!! I dont really want want to delete it but I want the acknowledgement for fixing. There are no canon facts in this show so any type of media is accepted, it boils down to preference. So while one my not agree with my post it is part of what is published. Make sense?

@rob sure

just make the post quality reflect the quality of your opinions

Anybody else think the question post in the Community Promotion Ads meta thing is way too long and detracts from actually posting or voting on ads? anyway, I just did this one up for the Chesterton Conference this summer meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3504/4

@ wax eagle I will try to make them more like I do here. I take this more seriously though than sci fi haha...also can u loose badges???

@rob depends on the badge, in general, no

@PeterTurner I just voted it up. tbh that is a highly underused feature. We need stuff to advertise there

@waxeagle thanks, hopefully it'll get the requisite number of votes, you'd think Christians would have more gatherings to promote seeming as matt 18:20 seems to say it's a good idea.

@wax eagle, ok gotcha...I thought I had 5 but now it looks like Ihave 4...oh well...Im really not here for the points just the interaction...im disabled at home and this is a form of my....well... " compainionship"...I want harmony not hostility...Im not in grade school anymore..hahaha...just lonely I guess...Thx for all ur help and advice, I WILL take it to heart...blessings 2 u n urs...ttu l8er ¢0:

@rob I understand

ciao

@JackDouglas Beware: You're engaging with me on one of my pet subjects: the mutability of language.

Here's me talking about it in a slightly different context:

And again, in yet another context:

Basically, words mean what they are used to mean.

Language serves the purpose of communication.

There is no Platonic definition of justice, of love, or or any other word.

There is only one way to define justice, and that is to look at the way the word is actually used by actual human beings.

This is not a theological point, an ethical point, or anything similar. It's a linguistic point.

@TRiG Wittgenstein

@TRiG, I would look at it from Gods definition.Gods definition is diffrent...but Im walking into a conversation I know nothing about, I have interupted Im sorry...I will bow out.

Your point makes sense as long as the word is actually used consistently by actual human beings :)

@JackDouglas Indeed (based on what very very little I know of Wittgenstein).

@rob don't feel obliged to, this room is open :)

Thx ¢0:

@TRiG it is only one philosophical way of looking at words and communication of course

@rob Indeed, as @JackDouglas says, feel free to contribute if you want to. This is a general-purpose room, not just a place for me and Jack to rant at each other. ;)

but I will concede the point that by your definition, and that of many many others, God is not just

@JackDouglas Well, I'm very happy with the idea that words can have different meanings in different contexts, and if you want to redefine terms to suit your aims, that's perfectly acceptable. (It's perfectly normal for specialised fields to develop a jargon.) But do be aware that this is what you are doing.

Well, this is a C.SE chat-room :)

I just look at what the bible says justice is, how it is used and how it was defined then in the context written...and I see God as just. But again I dont know your convo from the beggining.

@JackDouglas True.

Also thx to u @TRiG for the welcome.

Of course, it's not only non-Christians who find Calvinism disturbing.

Have you ever wondered why it was a sin to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Adam and Eve weren't ultimately sinning by becoming law breakers, but by becoming law makers: they took it upon themselves to start to define words like 'justice' for themselves

Oh...ur talking from a calvinistc p.o.v....

@rob lol, calvinists be calvinizing :)

@TRiG I find God 'disturbing' in a sense, but I assume that is due to deficiencies in my character rather than His

If i look at it that way...yes even by biblical definitions God doesnt seem just...see thats why I was bowing out...It takes on a whole new light to me now...hahaha...

@wax eagle hahaha...

@rob just and loving as defined in the Bible don't reflect Love and Justice as defined by modern society

and that's what Trig is getting at

@waxeagle I don't recall the Bible actually defining either of those characteristics.

I agree with that then...

@TRiG actually that's a good point. It doesn't

@JackDouglas At some point, this becomes a "might makes right" philosophy, doesn't it?

expressed is probably a better term than defined

I think it defines them by how and when they are used...and in what form...

@rob hence expressed

@TRiG This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

et al.

This is why I didnt want to come in the middle cause I had no idea what has been said or what direction this came from or is headded...

I mean, you're saying that we should follow God because X. Should is a moral judgment. And you have to make that judgment. And you need to have a reason to make it.

So at some point, yes, you are judging God. It's inevitable.

@TRiG I follow God because I think Jesus was resurrected, that's a judgement of historical evidence, not a moral one

And if you're not judging him on the basis of your assessment of his moral character, on what basis are you judging him?

@JackDouglas I can't derive an ought from that is. (Or isn't, actually, but let's avoid that debate.)

@TRiG it isn't a single step: man resurrected->listen carefully to his words->rethink my own moral code

(of course that's a simplification, but I think you know what I mean)

take away my belief in the resurrection and you'll shake the foundations of my morality

conversely I don't think there is any (Christian) point in questioning the morality of anyone who doesn't believe in the ressurection

@JackDouglas Hmm. Something just occurred to me. Even assuming that Jesus' words and their meanings were transferred through the millennia perfectly, there's still potentially an issue with how the available range of concepts was limited then compared to now.

@El'endiaStarman of course

@El'endiaStarman let's not lose cultural context and translation issues either

@El'endiaStarman but my trust in the transmission of the word is ultimately founded on the resurrection too

@waxeagle Hence why I included "and their meanings". My intent was that cultural context was understood as well.

gotcha

Basically, if we understood His words absolutely perfectly, then...

@El'endiaStarman we are given to understand them well enough

The confidence of a Calvinist is that ultimately nothing depends on me (thank God!), but everything depends on Him.

@JackDouglas It seems to me like there's an implicit claim that that passage applies to us today. How do you support that? (Suitable C.SE question?)

(Be back in 10 minutes, gotta walk from one place to another.)

@El'endiaStarman read the whole chapter and tell me what you think?

> "The New Testament is not concerned with the identity of Jesus as a puzzle to be solved in the context of fixed notions of God and the world. Rather, it presents Jesus as the key to a new model for life, and a new paradigm through which to understand God's relation to the created order."

> "If we think we already know what we mean by 'human' (or 'the world'), and what we mean by 'God', then the Christological puzzle is: how did God become human?"

> "In contrast, if we ask, what are the implications of our understanding of God and the world if it is the case that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself then we open ourselves to a paradigm shift in our understanding of God, the world, and the relation between the two."

> "Whereas solving a Christological puzzle could leave our basic understanding of the world more or less unchanged, engaging in Incarnational thought as a new paradigm may invite a transformation of our worldview."

(from God and the World of Signs by Andrew Robinson)

^^ I thought this might be relevant to thinking about the NT account and how it affects / is affected by our definitions

@JamesT I think it is

@El'endia Starman, if we understood His words perfectly, then there wouldnt be between 33000 and 41000 christian type denominations....hahaha...