Minor Thoughts from me to you

(Previous discussion of this subject can be found in the entry just below this one.)

The primary evil of Calvinism, in the eyes of those who do not adhere to its beliefs, is its denial of the free will to choose Heaven over Hell, God over the Devil. God's omniscience - His ability to know what we will pick ahead of time - isn't really an issue for mainstream Christianity; in fact the idea that God knows our decisions and accounts for them in His work, thus maintaining total control, is a staple of Arminianism (which is why people who say, "I believe in both!" when asked their opinion on the issue are both right and yet reveal their ignorance - "both" predestination and free will is the standard Arminian position of today, though there are of course some who deviate from it).

Interestingly, the same evil is inherent in Atheism: if we are merely biological machines, we are bereft of free will as Christians understand it. Our genetics and experience are the masters of our fate, not "us" (which we tend to think of as our consciousness).

Only "evil" is a misnomer when we discuss the existentialist horror of the atheist. Nobody has "done wrong" by creating the atheist universe. The most one could say about it (if one does take a negative view of the whole affair) is that it is a cosmic tragedy. Calvinism qualifies in theory as evil only because its situation has a mastermind who could produce something better if He liked.

However, it's worth pointing out that Calvinism has the advantage over Arminianism in that it is soon likely to be the only option left for believers - for the centerpiece of Arminianism is Humankind's "X-Factor", a decision-making entity we refer to as our soul or spirit, wholly independent of our biology and experience. Much as the LORD's Temple serves as an integral part of Judaism, without the soul's existence the entire Arminian view of Humanity is rendered incoherent.

So the fact that scientists are doing their best to prove that we don't have souls or spirits at all is potentially crippling (at least to the honest; Jews have gotten along just fine for nearly two thousand years pretending the Temple was never really important).

But not to Calvinism, since Calvinism doesn't require people to have souls. Removing the need for an independent decision-maker unshackled by the input it receives frees Calvinism of the need for there to exist a soul at all; all other functions of the soul can be easily attributed (and are indeed now largely proven to be the function of) the brain.

Calvinists thus have the following defense against the hypothetical scientists who have just proven the soul doesn't exist: "Well, fine - but you must understand that the Bible's authors were putting their message into words that people could understand."

If you believe in a bodily resurrection, all the better.

A note on the previously-mentioned existentialist horror of being an atheist (or a Calvinist, if you believe you're one of the pre-damned, but then I've never met a Calvinist who does): I recently read a great book of philosophical conundrums, one of which asked whether a robot who perfectly simulated being alive would in fact be alive. The question clarified for me the answer to the dilemma of how people like Dawkins, Harris, et al. live. For the last century, researchers have argued as to which is the chicken and which is the egg: our biology or our consciousness. But when there is no difference between life and its simulation, there is no need to differentiate between them - and so it is with Free Will and Predestination, Consciousness and Biology.

Now, a note on God's predestinative powers and Time: probably due in the main to science fiction stories, educated people have largely accepted the idea that Time is basically just another dimension, like Space (Newtonian Time). While that view is a superb manner in which to mentally picture Time and a lot of fun for the imagination, mistaking that abstract representation for reality is ultimately ridiculous. If God knows the future, it's not because He's already "seen it", "outside of it", or working simultaneously in the past, present, and future. If anything, God simply has a powerful enough intellect and influence to predict the course of events He sets in motion.

A third note, about my comparison of the Temples of Judaism to Calvinism: not to pat myself on the back too much, but I just realized how good a comparison that is. Modern Jews bizarrely insist that two verses, one in Hosea (6:6: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice") and one in Proverbs, frees them from entire books' worth of sacrificial requirements. Calvinists similarly are willing to overturn the entire rest of the Bible in favor of relatively few verses about God's control. Humans are treated as decision-making, moral agents responsible for their choices throughout the entirety of Scripture, except for the relatively rare declaration otherwise.

A final note, this one about God's glory, justice, et al.: We are told that God does everything for His own purposes. Fair enough. But we are often also told that God's purpose is "His own glory". Beg pardon, but what the dickens can God possibly want with glory? And what sort of creature would it make Him that He created beings to give it to Him?

The idea that God created people for the pleasure of creation is understandable. So is the idea that He wanted to have relationships. Those are two values that are self-justifying, independent. The idea that God created people just to reveal how awesome He is to them and demand that they admit it, not so much, and I suspect it's just "theology creep", the government-like tendency of theology to make more and more extreme statements to outdo itself.

God's justice and its requirement of blood to remit Sin is an equally bizarre idea, now that I think about it. I've forgiven many people in my life - and I have not found it necessary to kill anything in order to do so. A Christian might suggest that it is unnecessary for me to kill because Jesus paid the price for their sins against me - but I just don't honestly buy that I would find it necessary to kill regardless, unless I was defending myself from the offending party or utterly consumed by a need for vengeance.

A Christian might also suggest that all sins are sins against God, not men - but that is simply nonsense. Whosoever harms me, harms me (a better argument is the idea that God wants you to forgive as you were forgiven, but that proves a lack of need for blood). God is by all accounts undamaged. Indeed, the only crime against God must be simple, completely ineffective rebellion - which we must assume does not hurt God's feelings, because that would suggest we have some power over Him - and the idea that God can't put up with that suggests He's not merciful at all.