tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2308444933777640668..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Calvinism is Bullshit, and God Wanted Me to Say This.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13439686654023249202010-07-22T11:07:49.664-04:002010-07-22T11:07:49.664-04:00FYI, the best criticism against theological determ...FYI, the best criticism against theological determinism, that is if that determinism is also not universalism (such as some have argued about Barth), Thomas Talbott has written an essay that is second to none demonstrating that it is impossible to follow the two greatest commandments and hold to the doctrine of reprobation (the view that damnation of specific individuals is inevitable either because God ordained it directly, or merely witheld the grace that is necessary for repentence(not that I consider those different but I suppose some do)).Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75828927059663170192010-07-21T06:59:57.477-04:002010-07-21T06:59:57.477-04:00"Wouldn't that be a surprise to Calvinist...<i>"Wouldn't that be a surprise to Calvinists to find that the people God was secretively pleased with are people like me, and that it is they who will be cast into hell while I and other non-believers are brought into heaven? ;-)"</i><br /><br />It is doesn't sound like nonsense to me. What if the serpent was the good guy?ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14623334804157705478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45059869568403318982009-09-25T16:15:51.287-04:002009-09-25T16:15:51.287-04:00I am neither a "Calvinist" nor an "...I am neither a "Calvinist" nor an "Arminianist" but, rather, a "Christian Universalist." In commenting on this post and the issue of "free will" however, I will quote, not from the Holy Bible, but from India's most famous spiritual and philosophical classic, the Bhagavad-Gita:<br /><br />"O Arjuna, the Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings, whirling by maya all beings as if on machines mounted." - Gita Bhashya, XVIII.61 -<br /><br />As regards "free will" or "volitional autonomy" consider that the energy of an electromagnetic "particle" (photon) is measured in terms of its frequency, or wavelength. But the mathematics shows that they couldn't be real waves in space, like ripples on a lake's surface, but rather represent a complex form of vibrations in a mathematical-holographic space dubbed "phase space." But -- and here's the rub that many will find unacceptable -- this necessitates the agency of an "External Chooser" (God) operating out of a holographic core-space of each being. The same object appears in your consciousness and mine because the "External Chooser" (God) projects informational-energetic pulses from within our core-space which manifest as objects and scenarios upon the "screen" of our 4-D awareness. This is not to suggest that the universe is merely a "mirage." "Free will" is, however, a convincing illusion.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13636367636001622189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77919926501756317002009-02-12T14:27:00.000-05:002009-02-12T14:27:00.000-05:00Is my understanding as stated in the last blog reg...Is my understanding as stated in the last blog regarding the non-theistic view regarding ULTIMATE irrelevance accurate or can someone enlighten me?<BR/><BR/>BTW, I am not a hyper-Calvinist, as if that might be of interest. I agree there was a lot of male cow poop espoused; but I also know a lot of Calvinists and, with some exceptions, most are really decent people who share and care even if the presentation of their doctrine appears so cold - like I said - a lot of male cow poop.<BR/>For me, I know I would have to be a cold-hearted jerk to believe what I believe and not share it.<BR/>I appreciate this blog - a lot of people giving a lot of thought - clearly intimating an understanding of the importance.DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55905069619338786982009-02-12T10:07:00.000-05:002009-02-12T10:07:00.000-05:00Wow ! i almost smell the roasting of human flesh.P...Wow ! i almost smell the roasting of human flesh.Please somebody tell me!,has hell arrived here on earth? <BR/><BR/>I never knew much about Calvinism before but it seems its a bit like Idi Amin`ism .<BR/><BR/>Oh dear im really shocked,by this eye opening experience John Loftus.But thanks because these things need to be known.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66107534807932478752009-02-09T17:18:00.000-05:002009-02-09T17:18:00.000-05:00Steven,Okay. That's why I added "personal" meaning...Steven,<BR/><BR/>Okay. That's why I added "personal" meaning that ultimately, truly ultimately, when your children and mine and all children's children's children are ultimately dead and gone and the whole universe finshes its current course toward entropy death, my understanding of the non-theistic view is that it ULTIMATELY will not matter on a personal level. No insult to your depth intended.DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17668512162969863762009-02-09T16:56:00.000-05:002009-02-09T16:56:00.000-05:00DrMark,You're making an awful lot of presumptions ...DrMark,<BR/><BR/>You're making an awful lot of presumptions and extrapolations about what I think, and by and large you're wrong. But then again, as with most theists your religion keeps you from seeing the world from different perspectives (and of course, you'll turn around and accuse me of the same thing, although, again, you'd be wrong to do so).<BR/><BR/>The reason I think philosophy is worthwhile is because it is important to do the best we can to understand the world we live in and philosophy is an inescapable part of that, regardless of the bits that I personally find irritating. Having such an understanding transcends my own limited time here as it impacts the way that I interact with the world around me, the people I know, my children, and ultimately, the future. Regardless of whether or not there is a man behind the curtain.<BR/><BR/>I am not nearly as short sighted as you are attempting to imply.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32442074835707151392009-02-09T14:32:00.000-05:002009-02-09T14:32:00.000-05:00Steven,My guess is you accept that reality has no ...Steven,<BR/><BR/>My guess is you accept that reality has no higher purpose other than itself anyway; so you may as well enjoy philosophy while you are here and maybe that perspetive will make it less irritating. No need to get irritated about something that has no personal eternal importance, even though I know I am making a value judgment against being irritated and for enjoyment. So enjoy ... glad to be of help and comfort - lol.DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67967797819970200852009-02-09T12:03:00.000-05:002009-02-09T12:03:00.000-05:00DrMark,I consider myself a physicist suffering wit...DrMark,<BR/><BR/>I consider myself a physicist suffering with a love/hate relationship with philosophy. ;)<BR/><BR/>I recognize the importance philosophy, but at the same time, I also find that philosophy has an annoying tendency to become disconnected from reality. And I get irritated with that, even when I find the subject interesting.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76937754393959983312009-02-09T09:02:00.000-05:002009-02-09T09:02:00.000-05:00"Oh, by the way, here's a CHRISTIAN post about Joh..."Oh, by the way, here's a CHRISTIAN post about John Calvin and some of his "hobbies". He was an unrepentant murderous, torturing thug, basically. There was much more to the his life than just the Servetus incident."<BR/><BR/>I do not care for Calvin as a person but that has no bearing on whether his theology is correct.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I do not accept five-point Calvinism* but the four-point Calvinism of Moses Amyraut is appealing.<BR/><BR/>*I'm not sure that Calvin himself advocated five-point Calvinism.O'Brienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07532848760781346921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19281585314206822802009-02-07T23:07:00.000-05:002009-02-07T23:07:00.000-05:00Princess Bree,Like JK Jones said, "Keep the faith....Princess Bree,<BR/><BR/>Like JK Jones said, "Keep the faith." I meant to encourage. When the dialogue collapses to calling your position stupid or to say certain considerations are "mental masturbation" as 'An Apostate' crushed me to the floor with such flawless logic - lol - I only wanted to encourage you what the Lord of the universe says would happen when nerves are touched by a brush with Truth. I do understand the frustration of the hypocrisy of functioning in a blog entitled Debunking Christianity and then avoiding serious dialogue with Christians; but on and all many atheists, Deists, and agnostics on this blog do want to engage without being disrespectful. There are obnoxious ones to be sure; but, unfortunately, we hear some of the same junk from our own brothers and sisters. Hang in there.<BR/>On the Calvinist thing, I have kind of landed on God having full foreknowledge and also full sovereignty to choose (a constant state for Him from everlasting to everlasting since He is unchanging) what we would see as sovereign intervention through action or inaction. Remember naturalists will not embrace the concept of undeserved rescue (even though that is what evolution is through morphing stuff), so your position is going to appear "unfair and cruel" even though such a judgment dictates a standard-bearer.<BR/>I know the concepts of the coexistence of free will and sovereignty, three persons one God, decretive and preceptive will, etc., are tough for most Christians, so how much moreso will there be difficulty for those whose starting point is naturalism or the absence of an infinite / personal God. Love and grace and patience ... huh?DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74509778737253000602009-02-07T22:22:00.000-05:002009-02-07T22:22:00.000-05:00Robin,Princess Bree and other calvinists,First of ...Robin,Princess Bree and other calvinists,<BR/><BR/>First of all it's important to realize that calvinism doesn't come purely from the bible because there are a number of biblical passages directly contradicting it.<BR/><BR/>Passages like...<BR/><BR/>John 3:16,17<BR/><BR/>1tim 2:4,6<BR/><BR/>1tim 4:10<BR/><BR/>luk 2:10<BR/><BR/>rom 10:9,13<BR/><BR/>1john 2:2<BR/><BR/>1john 4:8<BR/><BR/>I can go on, but calvinism cannot be true with these passages being true at the same time. So calvinism exposes internal contradictions within the bible.<BR/><BR/>Calvinism not only has biblical problems but it doesn't even pass the smell test.<BR/><BR/>The idea that God predestined/decreed everything according to the counsel of his will (as articulated in the westminster confession)means he is responsible for every evil act ever committed. Everything happens because he willed it into existence, this is the unavoidable conclusion whether you want to accept it or not. <BR/><BR/>Robin starts talking about positive and negative decrees, again showing the desperation of calvinists. So God decreed (commanded) to allow people to commit sins? Which is it, did he command it or allow it? Calvinists tend to resort to arminian terminology when they get pinned down.<BR/><BR/>Calvinists don't believed God ALLOWED anything! He commanded/decreed everything according to his will. <BR/><BR/>Listen to what the westminster confession says about your god's decrees<BR/><BR/>Chapter 3<BR/><BR/>I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; (here comes the double speak) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. <BR/><BR/>II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (nothing happens by free will)<BR/><BR/>III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (For his glory some are born damned to hell with no hope) <BR/><BR/>IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (they cannot do a damn thing about it)<BR/><BR/>This is calvinist doctrine, and this is totally unfair and unjust.<BR/><BR/>If you want to believe in a immoral and unjust god thats fine, but don't preach about a loving, good, gracious, merciful god then.Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59235711606171917242009-02-07T22:01:00.000-05:002009-02-07T22:01:00.000-05:00And according to Philip R. Johnson (the Calvinist)...And according to Philip R. Johnson (the Calvinist) Hyper-Calvinism (not orthodox Calvinism) teaches:<BR/><BR/>1. The denial of common grace.<BR/><BR/>The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.<BR/>The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).<BR/>The distinction between common grace and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God's goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin's destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people's behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike. God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). That is common grace.<BR/>The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and even Augustine. But type-4 hyper-Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and therefore shows them no favor or "grace" of any kind.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>2. The denial of God's love toward the reprobate.<BR/><BR/> Type-5 hyper-Calvinism is closely related to type-4. To deny that God in any sense loves the reprobate is to suggest that God holds us to a higher standard than He himself follows, for he instructs us to love our enemies—and Scripture teaches that when we love our enemies, we are behaving like God, who shows lovingkindness even to the reprobate (Deut. 10:18; Matt. 5:44-45).<BR/>Furthermore, to insist that God's demeanor toward the non-elect is always and only hatred is a de facto denial of common grace—the same error of type-4 hyper-Calvinism.<BR/>There are some who hold this view, yet manage (by being inconsistent) to avoid other hyper-Calvinist opinions. The most influential advocate of the type-5 position was Arthur Pink. I hesitate to label him a hyper-Calvinist, frankly, because he fought the stronger varieties of hyper-Calvinism in his later years. A few other Puritan and mainstream Reformed theologians have also denied the love of God to the reprobate. They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.<BR/>This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). For an excellent antidote to the notion that God loves no one but the elect, see R. L. Dabney's superb article, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy."Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252416860719494606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49168993959412937182009-02-07T21:25:00.000-05:002009-02-07T21:25:00.000-05:00Princess Bree,Keep the faith.Princess Bree,<BR/><BR/>Keep the faith.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64793523314950423802009-02-07T20:12:00.000-05:002009-02-07T20:12:00.000-05:00DrMark,I wasn't expecting any sort of congeniality...DrMark,<BR/>I wasn't expecting any sort of congeniality from this site. What I didn't expect was being treated as though I deserve no respect (Neal's "get over it" was rather rude).<BR/><BR/>I actually just wanted to bring up some valid questions from my perspective. I find it odd that no one responded fully and logically to my first inquiry. If you all think Calvinism is ridiculous because it "tells" us to hate people, I wanted to get your opinions as to why that's any different from non-Calvinists or non-Christians hating people, too. It's a poor argument to say that "because they are told to hate people Calvinists are ridiculous and stupid." Then are the non-Calvinists or non-Christians who hate people also ridiculous and stupid? <BR/><BR/>And I don't want the argument back that we choose to believe Calvinism and therefore we agree to hate people. I know many people who believe some one is evil and actively choose to hate that person. Many people choose to hate other people. It's the same concept, only without the religious aspect.<BR/><BR/>Neal,<BR/>I was indeed talking about Oxford University. I got a 4.0 because that's how my degree-grade transferred to my American college. Sorry about not clarifying.<BR/><BR/>And that's fine if you have a right to call me stupid because you think I'm stupid for believing what I do. But I can come back with that exact argument: I can call you stupid if I think what you do, say, or believe is stupid. For example, I could say: "I think you're stupid for <I>not</I> believing God," "I think you're stupid for saying 'get over it,'" etc. That argument doesn't hold much ground.<BR/><BR/>Although does anyone really want to discuss things in-depth with Christians on this blog, or do you all just want to make fun of us?<BR/><BR/>I'm honestly looking for some good discussion and respectful information from both sides.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7680270946711700572009-02-07T14:12:00.000-05:002009-02-07T14:12:00.000-05:00Steven,Just curious for my own FYI (I am not into ...Steven,<BR/>Just curious for my own FYI (I am not into baiting and traps, etc.): Do you consider yourself a physicist and not a philosopher?<BR/>I do think it is reasonable for scientists to engage in love of wisdom and for philosophers to engage in science and certainly philosophy and ethics of science - hopefully on more than a majoritive basis - lest we get Hitler's SuperMan or the children of Sartre - Khmer Rouge - or dictatorially politicized Christianity - Inquisition, or radical Isalm - terrorism (thank God (or ammonia gas) not yet majoritive but moving in that direction).DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50514149245427166602009-02-07T13:36:00.000-05:002009-02-07T13:36:00.000-05:00Uh DrMark, you're equivocating. Polkinghorne is a...Uh DrMark, you're equivocating. Polkinghorne is a physicist, <B>not</B> a philosopher. And as I said, Polkinghorne's philosophical musings on what quantum theory "means" aren't anymore relevant to the true nature of the universe (and by extension, us) than those of anyone else, unless he can back them up empirically at some minimal level.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that he doesn't have <I>any</I> insight, I just don't think it amounts to much unless he can show that his ideas are more plausible than the ideas of others', which he can't do.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5027203953277261442009-02-07T10:25:00.000-05:002009-02-07T10:25:00.000-05:00Thanks for that great example to Princess, An Apos...Thanks for that great example to Princess, An Apostate (sorry you got hurt). <BR/>Anyway: So one computer said to the other, "Don't be ridiculous. We weren't manufactured by humans. We are the highest power we know. Now, let's create a Terminator to prove it."DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23474892208699985142009-02-06T23:31:00.000-05:002009-02-06T23:31:00.000-05:00DrMark, Until you can provide the slightest bit ...DrMark,<BR/> Until you can provide the slightest bit of verifiable, testable evidence that your god exists at all, your ramblings are mere mental masturbation.Dan Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12859759162872190863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19410041733682774662009-02-06T19:19:00.000-05:002009-02-06T19:19:00.000-05:00Princess, I do suggest a chill-out for you. Have f...Princess, I do suggest a chill-out for you. Have fun at this site or don't do it. Remember Christ said that because the world hated Him, it would hate His followers also (hate of course meaning the full spectrum from rejection to ridicule to outright persecution - and now that will generate a lot about how Christians hate, so brace yourself but ... have fun). Don't expect congeniality toward Christ or your faith here and if it comes, enjoy it. It's our job to witness, just share what we know as witnesses on a stand are supposed to do. I know you care but don't take insult. Just enjoy the dialogue and then trust.<BR/><BR/>Hey Stephen - gotta love it. You go from "those of us who have studied quantum theory find that such comparisons all too often mischaracterize quantum theory" to calling the man most qualified to properly characterize quantum theory "a poor philosopher."<BR/>Care for some pretzels with the logic dip?<BR/>I do agree with you about philosophy of science courses. I did not get a decent course in such in my 20 years as a scientist; but I finally did only when I encompassed graduate work in theology and philosophy! Go figure, huh?<BR/><BR/>Neal, when I did my graduate work at Oxford, UK, I received alpha and betas with +, ? (query), and - clarities. Thinking it correlates to the firsts, seconds, etc. Just an FYI.DrMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144631073242912975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66250504484305588772009-02-06T06:52:00.000-05:002009-02-06T06:52:00.000-05:00Princess Bree - "I guess it doesn't even matter th...Princess Bree - "I guess it doesn't even matter that I attended Oxford University and received a 4.0"<BR/><BR/>Which Oxford University would that be? I assume it's not the Oxford in the UK, since the grades awarded there are 1st, upper 2nd, lower 2nd and 3rd class degrees...<BR/>A minor quibble, and if I've misinterpreted your comment, I apologise.<BR/>However, criticising someone because of their religious beliefs is not the same as criticising someone because of their ethnicity or nationality, as you suggest. Someone's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are a personal choice. You are free to follow any religion you choose, or none. You do not get to choose your ethnicity or nationality (or your sexual orientation for that matter...). If you choose to believe something which others see as stupid, it's their right to call it stupid. Get over it.Commius Puncohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12412506598970668627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7628204511529289122009-02-05T21:27:00.000-05:002009-02-05T21:27:00.000-05:00I am a Calvinist and I could go on and on about th...I am a Calvinist and I could go on and on about this post, but I only want to say two things in response to two sentences of yours.<BR/><BR/>1. "It calls upon them to hate people just as God hates people."<BR/>-- Funny, I don't hate people, or at least, I try not to. And besides, don't many people across the world (non-Calvinists included) hate people, too?<BR/><BR/>2. "How can any intelligent person accept this complete and utter nonsense?"<BR/>-- So now my religion automatically makes me stupid? I guess it doesn't even matter that I attended Oxford University and received a 4.0. I shouldn't have even gone to school, apparently, because my intelligence is so base and infantile that I'm incapable of understanding anything besides nonsensical Calvinism. <BR/><BR/>It's like calling someone dirty just because they're a Mexican.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44521802840390855492009-02-05T15:57:00.000-05:002009-02-05T15:57:00.000-05:00I wants me some of that "total depravity," please!...I wants me some of that "total depravity," please!Alfred J Naghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140526935611693068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16439402204284753332009-02-05T09:44:00.000-05:002009-02-05T09:44:00.000-05:00God is all-knowing and I'm notGod is self-sufficie...God is all-knowing and I'm not<BR/>God is self-sufficient and I'm not<BR/>God is all-powerful and I'm not<BR/>God is perfect and I'm not<BR/>God is the Creator and I'm not<BR/><BR/>There's a God and I'm not it.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252416860719494606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48594486420767616422009-02-05T09:34:00.000-05:002009-02-05T09:34:00.000-05:00Also,The God of calvinism isn't on an ego trip. Pr...Also,<BR/><BR/>The God of calvinism isn't on an ego trip. Pride thinks of itself and loves itself more highly than it ought to. God doesn't do this. God's loving Himself and thinking of Himself is in direct proportion to He is. The most glorious of all beings. He's perfect and He thinks of Himself as such. I'm not perfect or all knowing. For me to think so leads to pride and arrogance. I would be thinking of myself more highly than I ought to. This isn't so with God. He loves Himself above all because He is infinitely glorious.<BR/><BR/>For me to do this is pride and arrogance. For God to do it is the essence of righteousness. He doesn't think of Himself more highly than He ought to. He's not egotistical.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252416860719494606noreply@blogger.com