More evidence re: Calvin's 'dark side' ;)

[GarthP2000]

Because I have been told that I bring baseless charges re: Calvin, and our good and eloquent friend Cynic wants proof, and to keep the 'Trinity has met its match' thread from being further derailed (as well as being specifically at Cynic's request), I bring to him, and all interested parties one (but its not the only one) source about Calvin's history and his questionable activities:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm

Now I know that this is from a Catholic source, and that there is hardly any love lost between Catholics and the Reform Church, but this source is documented enough to be considered a valid one nonetheless.

Here are some highlights from the article that focus on the characteristics that I brought up about Calvin:

quote:

In 1527 the arms of Savoy were torn down; in 1530 the Catholic party underwent defeat, and Geneva became independent. It had two councils, but the final verdict on public measures rested with the people. These appointed Farel, a convert of Le Fevre, as their preacher in 1534. A discussion between the two Churches from 30 May to 24 June, 1535 ended in victory for the Protestants. The altars were desecrated, the sacred images broken, the Mass done away with. Bernese troops entered and "the Gospel" was accepted, 21 May, 1536. This implied persecution of Catholics by the councils which acted both as Church and State. Priests were thrown into prison; citizens were fined for not attending sermons. At Z?h, Basle, and Berne the same laws were established. Toleration did not enter into the ideas of the time.

But though Calvin had not introduced this legislation, it was mainly by his influence that in January, 1537 the "articles" were voted which insisted on communion four times a year, set spies on delinquents, established a moral censorship, and punished the unruly with excommunication.

This shows Calvin's authoritative (near dictatorial) influence in Geneva.

quote:

In November, 1552, the Council declared that Calvin's "Institutes" were a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gouet was imprisoned on charges of impiety in June, 1547, and after severe torture was beheaded in July. Some of the accusations brought against the unhappy young man were frivolous, others doubtful. What share, if any, Calvin took in this judgment is not easy to ascertain. The execution of however must be laid at his door; it has given greater offence by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. The Reformer did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a sort of revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed.

Cynic, remember when I spoke earlier of 24 people killed by Calvin? You were right; I was incorrect. It was 58!

quote:

"I am more deeply scandalized", wrote Gibbon "at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the autos-da-f?f Spain and Portugal". He ascribes the enmity of Calvin to personal malice and perhaps envy. The facts of the case are pretty well ascertained.

The above paragraph begins the details which follow in which Servetus was murdered. (There I go again. ;)-->) And no, there is no sign of Calvin feeling any remorse nor 'godly' contriteness over the event. If anything, it was almost a blood lust.

Oh, and here is a paragraph that seems (to me at least) to illustrate this kind of mentality in a nutshell.

quote:

The cold, hard, but upright disposition characteristic of the Reformed Churches, less genial than that derived from Luther, is due entirely to their founder himself. Its essence is a concentrated pride, a love of disputation, a scorn of opponents.

I fully agree.

Anyway, Cynic, you *did* ask for 1) a seperate thread on the matter, and 2) resources backing my ((cough)) 'baseless blood libel'.

Enjoy.

-->

[def59]

Aren't you glad the Founding Fathers learned from history and did not set up a state religion nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion?

[GarthP2000]

No ...., Sherlock!

Interesting too, is how the Puritan colony was a close copy of Calvin's regime in Geneva, and how f-a-s-t it wound up being the anti-thesis of what this country was founded upon. Also, many of our founding fathers, regardless of denomination, were strongly anti-Calvinist in their thinking.

[def59]

it's elementary my dear Watson :D-->

[CKnapp3]

quote:

Originally posted by def59:

Aren't you glad the Founding Fathers learned from history and did not set up a state religion nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion?

What kind of candidates do you support for public office, Def?

[oenophile]

If you want to take a good look at Calvin's legacy come up here to Grand Rapids Michigan.

The town is so uptight that you can hear it squeak.

[Tom Strange]

Calvin had a 'dark' side? ...oh my... what about Hobbs?

[dmiller]

Everyone has a *dark side*.

E-V-E-R-Y O-N-E.

[def59]

quote:

Originally posted by oenophile:

If you want to take a good look at Calvin's legacy come up here to Grand Rapids Michigan.

The town is so uptight that you can hear it squeak.

Hey I used to live in GR. Were you in while there? I got out in 89.

[def59]

Chuck

Now you want to judge me for the way I vote?

[oenophile]

def,

I moved up to GR to be near my 16 y/o son last spring. I have been out of der weg for almost ten years now.

I thought Dallas was religious but GR makes Dallas look like Bourbon Street. There is a predominance of as I am sure you remember of people of Dutch descent who belong to the Christian Reformed Church. Their church building look cold and forboding...which no doubt reflects their theology.

Let's not forget that it was this Church that supported apartheid in South Africa.

[def59]

Hey, I married one.

Like any institution there are some good people in there too.

[oenophile]

Please accept my apologies. My remarks regarding the Christian Reformed Church were a broad swipe.

[CKnapp3]

quote:

Originally posted by def59:

Chuck

Now you want to judge me for the way I vote?

Sure Def, why not? :D-->

[Goey]

Calvin was not a tolerant man. In 1553 he had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for "heresy" meaning disagreeing with Calvin. not only was Servetus burned at the stake, they used green wood that bunned slowly so that he would suffer all the more.

TWI was a kindergarten cult compared to Calvin's Geneva.

Calvin was definitely no angel. Today he would be considered a murderer and a power hungry psycopath.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

Quotes from Calvin after murdering Servetus:

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."

Calvin set himself up on the judgement throne to decide who lives or dies according to his interpertation of scripture.

I see Wierwille and Martindale as a mini-Calvins - only with the Trinity issue reversed.

Thank God there are civil laws now that prevent the Calvins of the world from murdering folks over scriptural differences.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Goey

[GarthP2000]

And it isn't a 'romanist Mary-worshipping Catholic' sourse either, but a Protestant one.

;)-->

[Cynic]

quote:

Originally posted by Goey:

Calvin was not a tolerant man. In 1553 he had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for "heresy" meaning disagreeing with Calvin. not only was Servetus burned at the stake, they used green wood that bunned [sic] slowly so that he would suffer all the more.

Although Calvin was the central figure in the prosecution of Servetus, and is not recognized for being tolerant, he opposed fire as the mode of Servetus’ execution.

The death-by-burning sentence against Servetus was determined and set by Geneva’s larger governing Council. It was not imposed by some fiat of John Calvin. Calvin did not have the civil authority in Geneva to impose death sentences.

The allegations in Goey’s post range from incautiously made to near-rabid, and thereby are quite fitting in a thread started by Garth.

[Trefor Heywood]

Similar arguments were made by the Spanish Inquisition.

The heretics were always turned over to the civil power for the auto da fe.

Calvin was well aware of what the consequences of his prosecution of Servetus would be.

In all such theocracies the civil authorities carry out the will of the spiritual leaders, whether or not they actually have a theoretical civil authority.

In Iran Khomeni was the one who people listened to, irrespective of who was actually president.

The same applied in Geneva.

[Goey]

quote:

Although Calvin was the central figure in the prosecution of Servetus, and is not recognized for being tolerant, he opposed fire as the mode of Servetus’ execution.

Whoopty Do! Lets put a feather in Mr Calvin's hat for that. He relentlesly persecutes Servetus and sees to it that he is sentenced to death and then is "against" fire as a means. Well that makes it all better now eh Cynic? Your hero was a murderer - face it.

Calvin knew full well what the consequences could be for Servetus. Calvin dogged Servetus relentlessly and went out of his way to have him murdered. His opposition to fire was simply a token protest. He wanted the man dead.

quote:

The allegations in Goey’s post range from incautiously made to near-rabid, and thereby are quite fitting in a thread started by Garth.

What was "rabid" is the way that Calvin doggedly persecuted folks that disagreed with him. Not the kind of man that I would put up on a pedestal.

Isn't it funny when the blatant character flaws and despicable acts of peoples heros are brought to light - how they gloss them over with stuff like, "he opposed fire" or "he was only human". Bulldange rationalization from seemingly intelligent people - so they can keep their heros up on that pedestal. Freaking religious nuts.

[def59]

This is why theocracies are a bad idea. Even ones run by atheists!

[Cynic]

Goey,

I have not rationalized away Calvin’s responsibility, and have stated before elsewhere on this forum that Calvin did have responsibility for Servetus’ death.

I oppose, however, your distortions and lies. You came in here pointing to fire and slow-burning green wood--making an issue of the mode of execution--and crudely asserted that Calvin had Sevetus burned at the stake. Face yourself. That is FALSE.

[def59]

How many Christians get killed everyday by secular or theocratic governments, do we mourn them?

[GarthP2000]

Cynic,

The fact that Calvin wasn't 'on the city council' makes him no less in a position of power, nor any less responsible for the abuses thereof. The links that I provided claerly shows the kind of power he welded, despite your *weak* and *non-substantial* protestations about the 'nonvalidity' of the sources to the contrary. Weak and non-substantial I say, because you provide NO counter evidence to disprove the facts provided by those sources. Nothing except ad hominum & derisive whining.

Face it, chief. You're denomination's founder has, in many respects, done far worse things than Weirwille and Martindale, combined. Whether or not he was doctrinally correct and orthodox is irrelevent. And that you are so rabid yourself in defending his reputation causes me to wonder how much control your Calvinist leaders have over your life. Or maybe its something else; I really don't know, to be sure. But it can't be for any real good reason,....

... cause the man (Calvin) clearly doesn't deserve anywhere *near* that amount of respect or devotion.

-->

Def, plenty of times I (and many others) have heard about the persecution of the Christian believers, both in fact, and in hype. I'll bet that you do an overall public comparison of the publication of the persecution of Christians, and the publication of the persecution of non-believers, the Christian's tale wins out, hands down!

So spare us the 'Nobody hears our tale any more, cause our side is so poor and oppressed!' violin playing, please.

I just ate! :P-->

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Cynic:

I oppose, however, your distortions and lies. You came in here pointing to fire and slow-burning green wood--making an issue of the mode of execution--and crudely asserted that Calvin had Sevetus burned at the stake. Face yourself. That is FALSE.

He's right.

According to the coroner's report,

Servetus choked on a sandwich.

The confusion is that it was a GRILLED sandwich, so the SANDWICH was on fire.

Moreover, it was a STEAK sandwich. So, the STEAK was burned,

but Servetus wasn't burned at the stake.

And that's why OJ's innocent.

No, wait-what thread am I in?

[Yanagisawa]

Quote:

"Calvin had a 'dark' side? ...oh my... what about Hobbs?"

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm

Yes, Hobbes had quite a dark side too.

BTW the comic really was named after these gentlemen.