Andrew, it's neither "Calvinistic" or "Arminian" to say some people are going to Heaven and some are not. That's just what Christians believe.

Doesn't it seem a little presumptuous to declare, based on only your experiences (one person) and a single church (one venue), that all "Calvinists" (or anyone else, really) are this-and-such and have some uniform behavior?

By the by, anyone being mean shouldn't surprise or annoy you, anyway, if it is true that morality is relative and based only on opinion.

Meanwhile, Mother-Music: guilty of not being clear on my part! I'll try to rewrite the question soon. Perhaps most of my effort in this discussion's first post was made in laying out the banned-topic rules.

I agree

Not that this is indicitave of all Calvinists, but it just seems in my experience that most of them are stuck up, holier-than-thou folk, but of course it depends on the person.

By the by, anyone being mean shouldn't surprise or annoy you, anyway, if it is true that morality is relative and based only on opinion.

Exactly, based on opinion. In my opinion I have better things to do then listen to people tell me why I'm going to hell just because my parents make me sit there for a couple hours a week.

Andrew, I really do think that our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. That's why He made us and that's why we can have morality. God can indeed judge us based on whether or not we are serving the purpose for which we were created.

If our purpose is to serve god, then he is selfish and unworthy of our praise.

Excuse me, but who gave you authority to judge God? Worthiness is a moral category, my friend.

As it is, God is selfish because it would be wrong for Him to be otherwise. If honor and glory are due to the highest things, then God would be wrong to anything other than selfish because He is the greatest possible being.

I was tired of being told how certain people were going to heaven and others were not, and why.

That's just what the Bible teaches. People sin and so God gives them over to sin and eventually puts them where they can't harm anyone but themselves. No one goes to Hell who doesn't want to be there. Because sin has blinded us, we don't want Heaven and the awful presence of God. I thank God every day that He has pulled me out of that not because of anything I've done or because of anything I am, but because it was His good pleasure.

TBG

If our purpose is to serve god, then he is selfish and unworthy of our praise.

And even if you are right, you are even less worthy. You're a rather pathetic "god," Andrew, to go judging the real One. So am I. So is anyone here. That's the great joke. And for a Christian, it's also great joy.

Why such anger and even chest-thumping about how you're supposedly higher than God? Do quit pretending you're God yourself, and lighten up.

Here is my experience. And I say this to others who are Christians, not necessarily to exclude any non-Christians, but because frankly they don't need to be reading books about fine points of Christian doctrine if they're rejecting God altogether:

I once thought all "Calvinists" were mean, too. I based this belief on not just one church, but two. Still I listened to the teachings and was intrigued. But nothing changed in my own heart and mind.

Then it happened that God brought my family and I to a small church where one man, merely by studying through Romans chapter by chapter, helped put it together. Gradually, with input from many other sources, I changed. I don't even remember "waking up" and going, "Hey, I think I'm Reformed now after all." And it did not just happen by reading books or studying Reformed teachings on paper (I have known of a few people who believed "Calvinism" yet hated God more because of it, showing they don't fully grasp His wonder in their hearts). It happened because I saw the effects Black Glove mentioned: humility and awe of God.

You know what I sometimes get tired of hearing?

That all Christians are "brainwashed" or wasting their life believing in some fantasy and support various "moralities" that range from wholly unnecessary to completely "wrong". Meanwhile, all those who do not subscribe to a deity are living life like they're "supposed" to, and their "moralities" are what are good for society.

In other words, we Christians are living in what one could call an "Atheist's Hell".

Not so much different from Christianity's claim of "those who accept Christ go to Heaven, those who don't go to Hell", is it?

But, you know, that's just how human nature is. We believe what we believe is right, and that those who don't believe what we believe are necessarily living inferior lives, in one way or another. No need to deny it; that's just how humans are.

Now, how we choose to act based on that, is a different story. Some acknowledge that others, despite their lives being somewhat "inferior", can still live a happy, fulfilling life to some degree based on their own terms. Others try to invite them to join them in their beliefs, so as to help them out, although they may try to avoid being too pushy and let the other party make their own choice.

And unfortunately, some will just look down on those who believe differently, considering their very being as inferior (as opposed to just their lifestyle as inferior).

Of course, that's from a non-theological standpoint. Dr. Ransom and TBG have already given the theological standpoints on this.

Excuse me, but who gave you authority to judge God? Worthiness is a moral category, my friend.

Everyone can judge whoever they want based on whatever they want. If you don'y subscribe to mine, that's your choice. And it is not a moral category; people deserve what they've earned (in most cases). That's like saying a rich person is not worthy of his wealth - well, he put in the work, or the one he inherited the wealth from did, so why not? Perhaps he swindled all his money, then he is still deserving of his money, but if you choose not to respect him for it you have that choice.

Elwin, I don't really know why you bother responding to my points since you seem to have no interest in what I actually say, although I do agree somewhat with your point on the "great joke," as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Call me a Greek or call me a Jew, "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

Stardf29, there is no way you're "supposed" to live. Regardless, as we talked about in the last forum, if your God does not really exist, you are wasting your time serving him, just as if he does exist then I am wasting my life not serving him.

Andrew: you speak truth there, my friend. I'm not that interested in what you say, because you are not God, and therefore have nil claim to set moral standards! When you've created a universe, or work all things to your glory and my good, and died for my sins, let me know?

I've already known for a while that you believe you see the message of the Cross as "foolishness," and a great joke. It's great that you, unlike many people (some of whom claim to be Christians) admit that. But the even greater joke -- and, like The Joker himself, it's actually not funny -- is that you are thinking, and operating, as if you are god. In much of you say, you even give all these moral pronouncements on everyone else, as if you're granting other posters "permission" to believe this way or that. It comes off as ridiculous and arrogant. It seems you've picked up more from morality-hammer-wielding Christians than you'd like to admit.

Believe me, I want to respect you and interact with you. But respect must be earned. So far you've showed no inclination to listen to others and actually ask what others believe, or tried to get to know them.

Stardf29, I haven't thought of it that way -- but yes, it makes perfect sense. I suppose that means that if I want to feel all cool and snarky and rebellious, I could go, "Neener neener, I'm gladly going to Atheist Hell, and I'm such a bad, bad Christian boy to cut up like this and break all the rules, and your 'god' simply isn't worthy of my worship."

Everyone can judge whoever they want based on whatever they want.

Then no one can. To say that anyone's standard is correct is to say that no one's standard is correct.

And it is not a moral category; people deserve what they've earned (in most cases).

Here you go again: "deserts" are a moral category to because they imply rights---and rights imply that I ought not to impinge upon them.

if your God does not really exist, you are wasting your time serving him

No. The concept of "waste" depends upon the supposition that there is, in fact, a proper use of the time. If there is no God, then I may be wrong, but my time has not been "wasted" since "waste" would be a meaningless concept.

TBG

When you've created a universe, or work all things to your glory and my good, and died for my sins, let me know?

See this is the root problem with morality - why should those be the standards?

I've already told you enough times that I don't think I'm a god, so there's no reason to restate it. Also as I've said more times than I care to count, nothing is the way it is because I say it is, it is ipso facto, it is what it is. The only reason it is this way is because it is not any other way.

Here you go again: "deserts" are a moral category to because they imply rights---and rights imply that I ought not to impinge upon them.

If you want to punch me, you can. But I can also punch you back, or have you arrested for assault. You have a choice, but also consequences.

No. The concept of "waste" depends upon the supposition that there is, in fact, a proper use of the time. If there is no God, then I may be wrong, but my time has not been "wasted" since "waste" would be a meaningless concept.

Not so, only in the sense that our very existence has no intrinsic value. Your morality has no basis unless it is factual, in which case it would also be false as it is based in faith. You are mistaking moral suppositions for facts. If God does not exist (if that is a fact), then the FACT of the matter is that there is no morality.

Anyways, I'm going to be gone for a couple of days. Don't feel obligated keep this topic going just for me, I'll check when I get on next.

-Andrew

If God does not exist (if that is a fact), then the FACT of the matter is that there is no morality.

In which case I still fail to see how I have wasted my life. I have lived that which is not true, but that's not bad since badness is now a meaningless category. Without God, morality not only doesn't exist, it has no meaning whatsoever. "Good" and "bad" have no more meaning than "benfaby" and "gwird."

Here is what you can do, Andrew. Whenever you make a statement that has moral connotations to it, try substituting a nonsense word instead, since it will have the same meaning, according to you. Or you might try simple emoting. Thus, if you were going to say that following God is bad, you should just say, "Boo following God."

That's where you end up.

TBG

"If there is no God, we as Christians are wasting our lives." This statement is more true than you realize. Paul actually takes it much further. He said that if Jesus was not, in fact, God incarnate into the form of a man, died on the cross, AND resurrected on the third day, then our entire faith crumbles and we are to be pitied above all men. This is what faith truly is and where Christianity differs from the other religions. If I believed something else and I ended up being wrong, its no big deal. I'll just find something else. But this doesn't work with Christianity. It is 100% in or 100% out.

This is also why Paul uses a shield to describe faith. We are constantly bombarded by life and what keeps us from being beaten down by life is our faith. When things go wrong, what do you turn to? Under what do you take cover? Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are frequently under fire and they take shelter behind a building, a car, or wall. They are putting faith in that shelter to protect them from the bullets and explosions. As Christians, our shield is the Lord. If he is real, he will protect us from anything that comes our way. If he is not real, we are just holding up an imaginary shield that will deflect absolutely nothing.

And TBG, I have learned that to glorify God is not the ultimate purpose of mankind. It is part of it. But God doesn't need us to glorify him. A rock can do that. His angels do that without ceasing. But we can do something that nothing and no one else can: have a relationship with him. That is why God made us, we can have an intimate relationship with him. Glorfiying God is just a part of the picture but is not the whole thing.

And TBG, I have learned that to glorify God is not the ultimate purpose of mankind.

You left out the enjoyment part.

Why can't angels have a relationship with God?

TBG

In a basic sense, yes angels can, but not intimately like man does and was created for. Did it ever say angels walked in the cool of the day with God? No, Adam did. Are the fallen angels included in Christ's redemption? I've yet to find a Scripture that indicates that. The Bible says that angels long to be in the know of the affairs of man. So there is something that makes us more special to God than angels, who worship and glorify him every second. That something is an intimate relationship, which is best described in our terms as marriage. Angels, don't have that.

My pastor for our Communion (Lord's Supper to others) this past Sunday did a short message on what a Blood Covenant is. I'll say more later because I have other things to do, but it is really interesting what it really entails. Just for one, our handshake originates from the Blood Covenant and is why at one point a handshake was as good as a signed contract. Angels don't get this benefit.

And yes, I did leave out the enjoyment part, as well as many others. Just from observing all the people I've gotten to know over the years, the only ones who have been able to express a true joy are the ones that have given thier lives to Christ. Many have expressed happiness, but it doesn't last and I can see deep down they are not really happy. But it is only through Christ can we experience an everlasting joy that supercedes the circumstances.

I'm just wary of the talk of intimacy as it smacks too much of warm fuzzies. I find too many people today, especially in the emergent movement, putting so much emphasis on it as to forget the objective covenantal side of the relationship.

How do we know that God loves us? Because of His promises to us as His people. The marriage relationship refers to the Church as a whole, not to the individual. Does God have a relationship to us individually? Yes, but that relationship is always described in terms of sonship, not marriage.

The great thing about sonship is that it captures what our relationship to God is to be like. We are commanded in Scripture to fear God. I remember as a kid, I feared my father---much better for my mother to find out when I stole the cookies than my father. Yet I also loved him. It's a relationship that mirrors how we are to see God. He disciplines us because He loves us.

TBG

At a risk of sounding like "ganging up" -- which I trust you'll not assume is happening here, Fencer! -- I wonder how you've learned this?

And TBG, I have learned that to glorify God is not the ultimate purpose of mankind. It is part of it. But God doesn't need us to glorify him. A rock can do that.

True. Yet we're here, and because God always does whatever will most glorify Himself -- for He loves being God and displaying His glories to others -- it makes sense that He created us chiefly for His glory.

His angels do that without ceasing. But we can do something that nothing and no one else can: have a relationship with him.

But aren't you forgetting that God also doesn't need us to have a relationship with someone? The "Persons" within the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, would have enjoyed perfect fellowship in eternity "past."

And regardless, to what end is our relationship with God? Our happiness?

As you've said, sure, our happiness in Christ and our enjoyment of His blessings is part of it, but even that has another goal: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. In countless Scriptures God reveals that is His goal: to do things for His Name's sake. Love, and Christ's personal relationship with His bride, are means to that end -- not ends in themselves.

Fencer, I think you'd really appreciate John Piper's book on God's ultimate goal of making much of Himself: Desiring God. I've quoted from it here, along with passing along links to starter articles such as this one: The Goal of God's Love May Not Be What You Think It Is. Methinks it would be much more helpful to understand the reasons why some Christians say, with joy, Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and see this as not only theologically correct, but delightful truth. God gets the glory, yes, but we get God, and that pleasure forever.

Yes, but that relationship is always described in terms of sonship, not marriage.

And Jesus' relationship with His Church -- all of His people, collectively -- is described in terms of marriage. There's a difference. This is why I bristle, yet have a hard time answering this notion without sounding nitpicky, when some Christians say "I'm married to Jesus!" No you're not. His Church is. And saying "I'm married to Jesus" can lead to weird stuff.