Well, as it turns out, Servetus WAS burned at the stake, but not on Calvin's orders. The Council of Geneva wanted him burned at the stake. Calvin, it seems, thought such a punishment was a cruel penalty for antitrinitarianism and opposition to child baptism. Calvin preferred a more merciful fate for Servetus.
Well, as it turns out, Servetus WAS burned at the stake, but not on Calvin's orders. The Council of Geneva wanted him burned at the stake. Calvin, it seems, thought such a punishment was a cruel penalty for antitrinitarianism and opposition to child baptism. Calvin preferred a more merciful fate for Servetus.
He wanted Servetus beheaded.
I think Rafael’s statements are (somewhat refreshingly) factual.
.... Yah! Tell that to Nick Berg. Tell that to his family.
Also, keep in mind Raf, that the people who rabidly went for Servetus burning at the stake were theologically taught by Calvin himself, as he was head of the top school in Geneva at the time, and if you were anybody in power, you had to go thru, and pledge allegiance to, his theological instruction first.
Remember that Geneva was for all practical purposes, a theological dictatorship; a theocracy, as it were, with Calvin maintaining an iron fisted control.
So, uhh, yeah, Calvin was ultimately responsible for the what and how Servetus died, just as surely as Hitler and Stalin were ultimately responsible for the deaths of those under their respective regimes, in both the what and the how.
I notice that you had (still yet) nothing substantial to offer as refutation to my sources, even after taking Raf's post into account. Which by the way doesn't alter anything about the accounts provided.
I notice that you had (still yet) nothing substantial to offer as refutation to my sources, even after taking Raf's post into account. Which by the way doesn't alter anything about the accounts provided.
You can’t fairly judge people or events of the past by modern norms. Execution was a pretty standard punishment for heresy throughout most of history, including the history of Israel, as related in the Bible. Beheading (with an axe or heavy sword, not like the recent terrorist beheadings) was perhaps the most humane form of execution in Calvin’s time, and among the more humane forms of execution ever devised.
Look, Garth. You're making it quite clear you don't want a discussion. You'd rather throw bombs. Don't be surprised if all you see incoming is bombs lobbed your way. An honest discussion requires more than the bites being tossed around here.
Besides historical context, as LG pointed out, you have to look at the whole of a person before broad-brush demonizing or sainting him.
There was far more bloodshed associated with Luther's movement, by the way. I honestly don't see see how poor Martin recovered from the stain of the violence that erupted in Germany in the wake of his disappearance. But Luther, like Calvin, was a mix of good and bad. Calvin deserves an honest look for the deep influence (for good or for bad) he's had on Western civilization and the American experiment.
Since the both of you use the 'context of history' argument (read excuse) as a ((cough)) 'defense', may I point out that maybe that's why the years since then is regarded as progress, since the aforementioned practices are no longer done in civilized countries. (Well, openly in any event)
Oh, and Evan, perhaps the progress thereafter was the influence (albeit non-intended) that Calvin had on Western civilization and the American experiment, ... as an object lesson on how NOT to live/govern in society, so you do have a point there. ;)-->
Besides, shifting over to the 'using the Godly standard of non-changing Truth' as a basis for judgement/discernment, how would you render Calvin and Luther (another good object lesson, BTW), hmmmmm? Or what if Wierwille lived back 4-500 years ago? Would your own harsh judgement about the man be more tempered then, given your own 'bombs' re: him and PFAL? But then again, maybe you can dish it out, yet not take it when one of your own authoritative sources is shown up in their 'non-godly' behavior, ehh?
I wonder .....
Cynic!
I just *knew* that there was a bit of polemic in you there after all, good buddy, what with the beer you drink? Next one is on me!
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.
Trefor equates Calvin’s influence in Geneva with Khomeini’s influence in Iran. The deficiency of such a comparison can be seen in the fact that Calvin presented arguments before an authoritative civil body in the matter of Servetus, whereas the influence Khomeini exerted was such that Khomeini merely proclaimed a fatwa to call for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie and his publishers.
The authority of Geneva’s Great Council of Two Hundred was significantly more than “theoretical.” The Council obviously demonstrated some independence from Calvin in refusing Calvin's request for a quicker mode of execution for Servetus. The Council included some opponents of Calvin, and once had expelled Calvin and William Farel from the city.
Calvin proclaimed no decrees of death. He did not urge Geneva’s citizens or the Reformation’s hoi polloi to rise and execute punishments.
Trefor’s rhetoric is shallowly generalizing and relativistic crap.
Note to Garth: I read that Rushdie ditched this babe, alleging she was “not intellectually challenging enough” for him. (I also have read that Rushdie denied making such a statement.)
Interesting that Calvin---err, Cynic's ;)--> responses to me still avoid presenting any solid facts to successfully refute what I posted.
He does however, endeavor (or appear to endeavor) to give a more substantive reply to Trevor. (Perhaps Cynic has given up on me totally ;)-->) And he uses the "See? Calvin really wasn't such a malevolent dictator after all. There were those who still opposed Calvin in dealing with Servetus' punishment." defense. Yeah, well, in any dictatorship, you'll have those who every now and then speak out differently than the head honcho. Such was the case in TWI, both under Wierwille and Martindale. Such insubordination wasn't tolerated for long however, as was evidenced in the article I referenced. And it still gives no disproof of all the accounts of punishments dealt in his regime.
You're slipping, dude. And really, such locker room, 'gotta get a babe' attempt at humor just doesn't fit you, especially when trying to be a Calvin apologist; although there is plenty of his activities to apologize for.
It might be because, Garth, you've yet to post anything substantive to refute. Thus far they're wild accusations that appear to largely fantasy. F'rinstance, why deal with your implication that Calvin was a dictator? It's untrue. A whole cloth fabrication. It would get tedous to have to quote neutral histories at you when you could have read it yourself.
I have no horse in this race. I'm not defending Calvin. I'm simply pointing out the emptiness of your rhetoric.
Have you not gone to the link I provided? Or are you too going to give me the 'well they are just those Catholics, you know' standard fare? Ok, how about the link that Goey provided, hmmm?
'Largely fantasy' my a**. Perhaps it's his brand of 'sovereign God' and 'forced grace' theology that you feel a kinship to, y'think? I know you aren't as rabid about the defense of Calvin as Cynic here, but you do seem to still 'have a horse in this race' as it were to look past the information provided in the links here.
Or maybe not, but I do know that if it were Wierwille (Der Veg) we were talking about, you would jump right in with ststements of support of the accusations, .... and you know it.
Actually, I think Garth is making a legitimate point (not that I necessarily agree with it, if only because I'm not very familiar with Calvin). If God is God, and right is right, and wrong is bad, and Calvin was (ultimately) good, or on the side of God, then the cultural influences he was subject to should be irrelevant. He should have lived by a higher standard, like Christ did. And since Wierwille is held to a biblical standard that transcends cultural expectations, Calvin should be, too.
Thank you very much! :)--> That was part of what I was saying, but a very central point. Plus, if we're going to point our 'righteous' fingers and openly complain about Wierwille and his ilk, then I think its only 'what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' for a mainstream critter like Calvin as well.
And if some overly-orthodox people can't take it, ..... tough!
Okay, Garth, but now I have to wonder why you're misrepresenting Cynic's argument. I don't see where Cynic is defending Calvin's every act and decision, as if his entire being, his every action and inaction, his every utterance, is a reflection of God's perfect word and will. In fact, he seems to be acknowledging Calvin's fallibility, and the limits of his influence.
I get your point, but I'm not sure who you're arguing with. Is anyone here making the claims you're refuting?
Like I said, I'm not all that familiar with Calvin, outside of reading early American literature, and seeing his influence in his Puritan followers. What specifically offends you? Is it that others admire Calvin? Or is it his theology? Or both?
First off Cynic made the claim that I (in a few other posts in time past) made false claims about Calvin, the power he welded in Geneva, and the number of people killed as a direct or indirect responsibility of Calvin's (usually due to a very strong religious intolerance on his part).
He said that I had no basis nor documented evidence for making those claims, so thus, this thread. And the reason it seems to me that Cynic is taking an other-than-objective derision towards my posts exposing Calvin, is that Calvin is still a very big and respected authority in the Reformed Church, and to speak ill of Calvin there is much like speaking ill of Wierwille in TWI and most related spinoffs. Ie., 'Tain't done, and many times even if true.
And while he does acknowledge Calvin's role in Servetus death, he won't acknowledge hardly any other documented and well known historical abuses under Calvin's rule in Geneva, and yes, he did rule, not by direct civil authority, but by theological power. (And this was before separation of church and state in the U.S., so the religious and secular power were often treated as the same back then, especially in Geneva.) Until they finally overthrew his a**.
What offends me about Calvin? His theology, ie., the predestination doctrine of some to heaven and some to hell, irrelevent of any free choice therein, his apparent aversion to the concept of free will, especially in regards to if someone rejects his god (which he seems to have a VERY special problem with, and apparently as do some of his followers), as well as Calvin's near rabid joy in murdering those in dissent who were unfortunate to be caught by his regime.
Goey had it right. He would be considered a murderer and a power hungry psycopath today. And you know and I know that if Wierwille took out one, just one, individual and put them to death like that in Geneva, U.S. Marshalls would descend on Intl. Headquarters so f-a-s-t, they wouldn't even have time to distribute the Kool-Aid, or set fire to anything ala Waco.
And despite any weak arguments regarding 'historical context', any *decent* human being would judge those abuses as wrong and heinous by any standard in any day. ... Note the emphasis on 'decent'.
Garth, I have no problem with the link you provided, "papist" though it may be. (Though they sure bungled the doctrine of predestination in the link they provide)
I just have a problem with your rhetoric.
And no, I really don't have a horse in this race.
Incidentally, I've come to think that Calvinist's embraced a stringent religious & civil legalism because of their so-called covenant view of God's dealings with man. In reformed theology, there is only one covenant and only one church. This puts essentially no difference between the Old & New Testaments. The upshot of this is fairly predictable. The history of the reformed movement post-Calvin, has been in one sense, a story of gradual moderation.
Cynic is correct that you made several false statements regarding Calvin, Baptists, and persecution of Jews on Trinitarian grounds. You have provided no basis for the latter two and what you have provided regarding Calvin neither supports your more rabid claims nor refutes anything Cynic has said.
Cynic never suggested that Calvin wielded no power or bore no responsibility for the deaths of Servetus or others. Rather, he plainly stated the opposite.
Cynic never suggested that Calvin wielded no power or bore no responsibility for the deaths of Servetus or others. Rather, he plainly stated the opposite.
Uhh, no. He only acknowledged Calvin's responsibility for Servetus. With a little bit of whitewash to go along with it.
The only reason I can think of for you stating such is that you evidently disregard the information shown by the two links here. Your choice, but I don't think you have any real historical basis for doing so.
As for the persecution of the Jews, they have been hounded throughout the centuries, and one of the main reasons that they were was because of their non-acceptance of Christianity, and to accept Christianity, you had to believe in the Trinity. (Check out what happened to Christians who did not believe in the Trinity, Servetus being but one of the most well known.) Up until 150-200 years ago, belief in the Trinity was law, my friend. Of course another big reason they have been hunted was the blame that they have collectively received for Jesus crucifixion, among others. Tell you what, ask any Jewish historian or a jewish individual who is well versed in their people's history. Run what I've said by him/her, and see what their rendering of my 'rabidness' is, hmmm? You might be surprised.
The only thing Cynic got right was my screw-up re: the Baptists. I will concede no more than that. Deal with it.
My comparison of Calvin with Wierwille was showing that if Wierwille did these things, he would be roasted in a heartbeat, yet because Calvin is regarded as one of the Bastions of the Reformation, coupled with weak reasonings (like yours) of historical context, he gets off with the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'.
Rabid, my a**!
And with that, I think perhaps this thread has run its course, so I say 'Caio'.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
7
21
17
Popular Days
Mar 12
15
Mar 13
13
Mar 14
8
Mar 11
7
Top Posters In This Topic
def59 10 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Cynic 17 posts
Popular Days
Mar 12 2005
15 posts
Mar 13 2005
13 posts
Mar 14 2005
8 posts
Mar 11 2005
7 posts
Raf
Well, as it turns out, Servetus WAS burned at the stake, but not on Calvin's orders. The Council of Geneva wanted him burned at the stake. Calvin, it seems, thought such a punishment was a cruel penalty for antitrinitarianism and opposition to child baptism. Calvin preferred a more merciful fate for Servetus.
He wanted Servetus beheaded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I think Rafael’s statements are (somewhat refreshingly) factual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am so honored to have secured your stamp of approval on that.
Of course, since you had no say in the matter, as you have no free will, my joy in your compliment is somewhat muted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Beheaded, .... a more merciful fate, ....
.... Yah! Tell that to Nick Berg. Tell that to his family.
Also, keep in mind Raf, that the people who rabidly went for Servetus burning at the stake were theologically taught by Calvin himself, as he was head of the top school in Geneva at the time, and if you were anybody in power, you had to go thru, and pledge allegiance to, his theological instruction first.
Remember that Geneva was for all practical purposes, a theological dictatorship; a theocracy, as it were, with Calvin maintaining an iron fisted control.
So, uhh, yeah, Calvin was ultimately responsible for the what and how Servetus died, just as surely as Hitler and Stalin were ultimately responsible for the deaths of those under their respective regimes, in both the what and the how.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
I notice that you had (still yet) nothing substantial to offer as refutation to my sources, even after taking Raf's post into account. Which by the way doesn't alter anything about the accounts provided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Patience, Punk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(blowing Cynic a kiss)
I wonder what his favorite beer is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Natural Light. Low-carb, cheap and rather tasty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You can’t fairly judge people or events of the past by modern norms. Execution was a pretty standard punishment for heresy throughout most of history, including the history of Israel, as related in the Bible. Beheading (with an axe or heavy sword, not like the recent terrorist beheadings) was perhaps the most humane form of execution in Calvin’s time, and among the more humane forms of execution ever devised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Look, Garth. You're making it quite clear you don't want a discussion. You'd rather throw bombs. Don't be surprised if all you see incoming is bombs lobbed your way. An honest discussion requires more than the bites being tossed around here.
Besides historical context, as LG pointed out, you have to look at the whole of a person before broad-brush demonizing or sainting him.
There was far more bloodshed associated with Luther's movement, by the way. I honestly don't see see how poor Martin recovered from the stain of the violence that erupted in Germany in the wake of his disappearance. But Luther, like Calvin, was a mix of good and bad. Calvin deserves an honest look for the deep influence (for good or for bad) he's had on Western civilization and the American experiment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan and Long Gone,
Since the both of you use the 'context of history' argument (read excuse) as a ((cough)) 'defense', may I point out that maybe that's why the years since then is regarded as progress, since the aforementioned practices are no longer done in civilized countries. (Well, openly in any event)
Oh, and Evan, perhaps the progress thereafter was the influence (albeit non-intended) that Calvin had on Western civilization and the American experiment, ... as an object lesson on how NOT to live/govern in society, so you do have a point there.
;)-->
Besides, shifting over to the 'using the Godly standard of non-changing Truth' as a basis for judgement/discernment, how would you render Calvin and Luther (another good object lesson, BTW), hmmmmm? Or what if Wierwille lived back 4-500 years ago? Would your own harsh judgement about the man be more tempered then, given your own 'bombs' re: him and PFAL? But then again, maybe you can dish it out, yet not take it when one of your own authoritative sources is shown up in their 'non-godly' behavior, ehh?
I wonder .....
Cynic!
I just *knew* that there was a bit of polemic in you there after all, good buddy, what with the beer you drink?
Next one is on me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Trefor equates Calvin’s influence in Geneva with Khomeini’s influence in Iran. The deficiency of such a comparison can be seen in the fact that Calvin presented arguments before an authoritative civil body in the matter of Servetus, whereas the influence Khomeini exerted was such that Khomeini merely proclaimed a fatwa to call for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie and his publishers.
The authority of Geneva’s Great Council of Two Hundred was significantly more than “theoretical.” The Council obviously demonstrated some independence from Calvin in refusing Calvin's request for a quicker mode of execution for Servetus. The Council included some opponents of Calvin, and once had expelled Calvin and William Farel from the city.
Calvin proclaimed no decrees of death. He did not urge Geneva’s citizens or the Reformation’s hoi polloi to rise and execute punishments.
Trefor’s rhetoric is shallowly generalizing and relativistic crap.
(For the text of Khomeini’s fatwa concerning Rushdie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwah )
*****
Note to Garth: I read that Rushdie ditched this babe, alleging she was “not intellectually challenging enough” for him. (I also have read that Rushdie denied making such a statement.)
You might need only to grow a beard, don some glasses, memorize a few literary-sounding phrases, and go for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Interesting that Calvin---err, Cynic's
;)--> responses to me still avoid presenting any solid facts to successfully refute what I posted.
He does however, endeavor (or appear to endeavor) to give a more substantive reply to Trevor. (Perhaps Cynic has given up on me totally
;)-->) And he uses the "See? Calvin really wasn't such a malevolent dictator after all. There were those who still opposed Calvin in dealing with Servetus' punishment." defense. Yeah, well, in any dictatorship, you'll have those who every now and then speak out differently than the head honcho. Such was the case in TWI, both under Wierwille and Martindale. Such insubordination wasn't tolerated for long however, as was evidenced in the article I referenced. And it still gives no disproof of all the accounts of punishments dealt in his regime.
You're slipping, dude. And really, such locker room, 'gotta get a babe' attempt at humor just doesn't fit you, especially when trying to be a Calvin apologist; although there is plenty of his activities to apologize for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
It might be because, Garth, you've yet to post anything substantive to refute. Thus far they're wild accusations that appear to largely fantasy. F'rinstance, why deal with your implication that Calvin was a dictator? It's untrue. A whole cloth fabrication. It would get tedous to have to quote neutral histories at you when you could have read it yourself.
I have no horse in this race. I'm not defending Calvin. I'm simply pointing out the emptiness of your rhetoric.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan,
Have you not gone to the link I provided? Or are you too going to give me the 'well they are just those Catholics, you know' standard fare? Ok, how about the link that Goey provided, hmmm?
'Largely fantasy' my a**. Perhaps it's his brand of 'sovereign God' and 'forced grace' theology that you feel a kinship to, y'think? I know you aren't as rabid about the defense of Calvin as Cynic here, but you do seem to still 'have a horse in this race' as it were to look past the information provided in the links here.
Or maybe not, but I do know that if it were Wierwille (Der Veg) we were talking about, you would jump right in with ststements of support of the accusations, .... and you know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Actually, I think Garth is making a legitimate point (not that I necessarily agree with it, if only because I'm not very familiar with Calvin). If God is God, and right is right, and wrong is bad, and Calvin was (ultimately) good, or on the side of God, then the cultural influences he was subject to should be irrelevant. He should have lived by a higher standard, like Christ did. And since Wierwille is held to a biblical standard that transcends cultural expectations, Calvin should be, too.
At least I think that's what he's saying.
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Laleo,
Thank you very much!
:)--> That was part of what I was saying, but a very central point. Plus, if we're going to point our 'righteous' fingers and openly complain about Wierwille and his ilk, then I think its only 'what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' for a mainstream critter like Calvin as well.
And if some overly-orthodox people can't take it, ..... tough!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Okay, Garth, but now I have to wonder why you're misrepresenting Cynic's argument. I don't see where Cynic is defending Calvin's every act and decision, as if his entire being, his every action and inaction, his every utterance, is a reflection of God's perfect word and will. In fact, he seems to be acknowledging Calvin's fallibility, and the limits of his influence.
I get your point, but I'm not sure who you're arguing with. Is anyone here making the claims you're refuting?
Like I said, I'm not all that familiar with Calvin, outside of reading early American literature, and seeing his influence in his Puritan followers. What specifically offends you? Is it that others admire Calvin? Or is it his theology? Or both?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Laleo,
First off Cynic made the claim that I (in a few other posts in time past) made false claims about Calvin, the power he welded in Geneva, and the number of people killed as a direct or indirect responsibility of Calvin's (usually due to a very strong religious intolerance on his part).
He said that I had no basis nor documented evidence for making those claims, so thus, this thread. And the reason it seems to me that Cynic is taking an other-than-objective derision towards my posts exposing Calvin, is that Calvin is still a very big and respected authority in the Reformed Church, and to speak ill of Calvin there is much like speaking ill of Wierwille in TWI and most related spinoffs. Ie., 'Tain't done, and many times even if true.
And while he does acknowledge Calvin's role in Servetus death, he won't acknowledge hardly any other documented and well known historical abuses under Calvin's rule in Geneva, and yes, he did rule, not by direct civil authority, but by theological power. (And this was before separation of church and state in the U.S., so the religious and secular power were often treated as the same back then, especially in Geneva.) Until they finally overthrew his a**.
What offends me about Calvin? His theology, ie., the predestination doctrine of some to heaven and some to hell, irrelevent of any free choice therein, his apparent aversion to the concept of free will, especially in regards to if someone rejects his god (which he seems to have a VERY special problem with, and apparently as do some of his followers), as well as Calvin's near rabid joy in murdering those in dissent who were unfortunate to be caught by his regime.
Goey had it right. He would be considered a murderer and a power hungry psycopath today. And you know and I know that if Wierwille took out one, just one, individual and put them to death like that in Geneva, U.S. Marshalls would descend on Intl. Headquarters so f-a-s-t, they wouldn't even have time to distribute the Kool-Aid, or set fire to anything ala Waco.
And despite any weak arguments regarding 'historical context', any *decent* human being would judge those abuses as wrong and heinous by any standard in any day. ... Note the emphasis on 'decent'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Garth, I have no problem with the link you provided, "papist" though it may be. (Though they sure bungled the doctrine of predestination in the link they provide)
I just have a problem with your rhetoric.
And no, I really don't have a horse in this race.
Incidentally, I've come to think that Calvinist's embraced a stringent religious & civil legalism because of their so-called covenant view of God's dealings with man. In reformed theology, there is only one covenant and only one church. This puts essentially no difference between the Old & New Testaments. The upshot of this is fairly predictable. The history of the reformed movement post-Calvin, has been in one sense, a story of gradual moderation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Problem with my rhetoric, huh?
Interesting that other people's rhetoric re: VPW was at least as 'polemic' as mine re: Calvin, yet you didn't act all indignant over that.
I wonder why ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Wierwille hasn’t a thing to do with this, Garth.
Cynic is correct that you made several false statements regarding Calvin, Baptists, and persecution of Jews on Trinitarian grounds. You have provided no basis for the latter two and what you have provided regarding Calvin neither supports your more rabid claims nor refutes anything Cynic has said.
Cynic never suggested that Calvin wielded no power or bore no responsibility for the deaths of Servetus or others. Rather, he plainly stated the opposite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Long Gone,
Uhh, no. He only acknowledged Calvin's responsibility for Servetus. With a little bit of whitewash to go along with it.
The only reason I can think of for you stating such is that you evidently disregard the information shown by the two links here. Your choice, but I don't think you have any real historical basis for doing so.
As for the persecution of the Jews, they have been hounded throughout the centuries, and one of the main reasons that they were was because of their non-acceptance of Christianity, and to accept Christianity, you had to believe in the Trinity. (Check out what happened to Christians who did not believe in the Trinity, Servetus being but one of the most well known.) Up until 150-200 years ago, belief in the Trinity was law, my friend. Of course another big reason they have been hunted was the blame that they have collectively received for Jesus crucifixion, among others. Tell you what, ask any Jewish historian or a jewish individual who is well versed in their people's history. Run what I've said by him/her, and see what their rendering of my 'rabidness' is, hmmm? You might be surprised.
The only thing Cynic got right was my screw-up re: the Baptists. I will concede no more than that. Deal with it.
My comparison of Calvin with Wierwille was showing that if Wierwille did these things, he would be roasted in a heartbeat, yet because Calvin is regarded as one of the Bastions of the Reformation, coupled with weak reasonings (like yours) of historical context, he gets off with the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'.
Rabid, my a**!
And with that, I think perhaps this thread has run its course, so I say 'Caio'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.