That is not what Calvinists believe - or any other Church AFAIK. AFAICS, Infinite Divine Love is compatible with eternal damnation - no Church I know of teaches that God necessitates or even causes people to commit the sins that damn them. If anything, there is a Hell for damned sinners because there is a God of Infinite Love: abolish God, & you abolish Hell.
I guess god has a better stomach for torture than I do (since I wouldn’t be inclined to want anyone burned eternally). However, it’s the idea that you guys find eternal torture synonymous with love that amuses me.
God does forgive: but how if a man refuses to be forgiven, & finds the very idea an obscenity ?
Do you really think those who do not believe in your religious system are somehow abhorred by the idea of forgiveness? I forgive people everyday, and I’m forgiven by people every day (well, maybe not every day … but most days).
If he chooses, lives in, & dies in, the self-willed & insane delusion that is deliberate & free & impenitent rejection of the only True Source of all love & grace & mercy ?
Defining rational thinkers as a captive of “insane delusion” is one of the more hilarious things I’ve heard this week. Hmmm, OK let’s analyze this like rational adults (assuming you’re rational). You believe in a god-man who rose from the dead, ancient men who acted as conduits for a supreme creator god who divided oceans, turned rivers into blood, etc., angels who appear to pregnant virgins to tell them they were impregnated by the spirit of an invisible god, etc. etc. … but it’s me who suffers from insane delusion? Sweet!
The problem is that you are asking God to force us to accept His mercy freely - but how can we freely accept from God what we freely and deliberately reject when He offers it ?
where is god now? How do his angels elude our telescopes?
Is God obliged to knock the universe out of synch by destroying the law of contradiction, purely in order to fit them both to our nightmares ?
I don’t oblige your god to do anything, since I believe he’s a figment of your imagination (well, not your imagination … but rather the imaginations of its authors).
For sin is a nightmare. Is God to subject Himself to the evil wills of men ? He did so, by being crucified for our salvation. What more would you have Him do ?
many men were crucified in ancient history … I can think of many worse ways to die. Burned to death (the method the 12th century CC used to execute dissenters) … now that’s a heck of a way to go.
God has died a hideous & obscene death, that man might share His Eternal Life. What more can He do ?
Do you have a while, the list is pretty long
If our choices are to be ours, each of us must make them: God can love a man - but He cannot be that man; the man is free to reject God’s Love. And freedom has consequences: if we reject Mercy, only Wrath remains. It was Jesus Himself Who first warned of eternal torment - not Paul. It is a mercy that Hell is mentioned in the NT - “forewarned is fore-armed” - a cruel God would not warn us.
Hmm, I’m more fond of the idea that religion is ancient mythology (it must be that invisible servant who slipped into my brain and is controlling my fingers as I type
)
What gets missed so often is that damnation is richly deserved,
here’s where the insanity begins, and why churches must be subservient to secular governance.
and that no-one is damned without deserving it.
ahh yes it really makes sense to assert people who don’t believe a certain thing in your particular way deserve eternal torment and damnation by fire? I mean geesh, how do people buy into this stuff?
What is often overlooked, is sin. If we saw just one of our sins as God Who is All-Holy sees & knows it, ISTM we would die of horror.
Let’s see I would die of horror if I viewed one of my sins from god’s perspective? Hmmm, nope doesn’t make any sense …
Lack of thought, perhaps. People are (speaking generally) accountable for what they do - IOW, they are resonsible for their actions & their motives. For instance: if we do what we know or strongly suspect to be wrong, then we sin. Responsibility for our actions implies rejection of fatalism - and is entirely compatible with accepting that our actions are influenced by a great many factors, of many kinds: it is this acceptance that explains why there is such a science as moral theology - and why “one size” does not “fit all” when judgements abour responsibility, innocence, & guilt are made.
Sorry not to tackle all your points, but Hell etc., seemed rather important.
I’m not a fatalist (nor do I imply all Christians are … I understand this view only exists within a sub-set of Christians; although it is a more prevailing view in Islam).
I also understand Calvin didn’t deny human free will, but there’s some nuance. What he believed is we will follow the path we were created to follow. In other words, it’s almost like an intelligent design argument. Each person is programed a certain way, which gives us our identity. Sort of like a dog will always go into heat (unless neutered), or monkey’s usually like banana’s, each human is built (i.e. formed, potter/clay analogy) a certain way. So yes it’s our freely made decisions, but decisions we were predisposed to (to summarize his theory the best I can). To Calvin grace tangibly begins with the forming process (but it represents the eternal intent of god). He wasn’t as descriptive as some other theologians, but in his view providence was behind everything.
Anyway, at the end of the day I think Calvin was just another guy who wasted valuable talent on theological pursuits, who eventually became a demagogue (like many religious leaders).
People have shot your position fuller of holes than a sieve, by pointing out the witness of the Bible, of the Christian Tradition, laws, the absence from both Testaments of the Bible of any positive evaluation of homosexual practice. ISTM that the only argument that will be acceptable is one that sanctions your position - but if we use those things to legitimise our own frailties & sins, we are twisting God’s will for our sanctification to suit our own wretched unholiness. That is more than sufficient to give away the true character of attempts to sanctify homosexual practice. And because of man’s heart is corrupt and deceitful, there is all the more reason not to allow this sexual behaviour. Self-preservation itself dictates that Christians who wish to obey Christ cannot call this unholy thing holy. It is a sin. Just like any other sin. So it must be repented of. End of story.