Fundie Retreat to Marry Off Children ~ Vaughn Ohlman

[HarryPotterFan]

9 hours ago, KZK said:

You think it's confusing for a Catholic, try being not-even-remotely-Christian. I was raised with no religion whatsoever. Growing up, I first learned that there were a few major religions, including Judaism and Christianity (Islam wasn't on my radar). Then I found out that Christians could be divided into Protestants and Catholics. Then that there are a bunch of kinds of Protestants but only a couple kinds of Catholics. Catholics are the ones who care what the Pope says, Protestants are the ones who don't. Beyond that was all trivial details I couldn't be bothered to try to understand.

I also knew of a few kinds of Jews. Orthodox are hardcore, Conservative in the middle, and Reform are liberal (so I found the mentions of Reform Christians here very confusing for a long time, since they're not at all the Christian equivalent of Reform Jews).

-snip-

Yeah, as a Jew I have enough trouble differentiating between Protestant and Catholic, and don't understand the nuances beyond the pope. And the "reformed" thing in the context of this whackadoodle is confusing for me as well.

7 hours ago, Iamhispurity said:

don't judge a denomination by its weirdos. 

This is a really good motto and should be on a bumper sticker or something.

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, quiversR4hunting said:

No problem. I found it weird, very weird that a mission statement that doesn't speak at all about faith then has a "Statement of Faith"

I had that experience recently when looking at the information for a summer camp where I was considering a job opportunity. I'd had some very superficial dealings with them in the past, and as far as I knew they were just a secular camp with a good reputation for providing therapeutic services for kids with special needs. As I was looking through their materials, though, I saw that they had a statement of faith, which kind of surprised me. It wasn't a problem but made me proceed with caution; I'm a Christian myself but I'm wary of getting involved with a group that might promote intolerance or conflate religious belief with social conservatism.

The statement started out pretty basic, just sort of general Christianity, but then started to get oddly specific. For example, not only did it refer to baptism, but it talked about the specific method by which baptism should be done and at what age a person should be baptized. Bearing in mind that as I said, this is not a church, where you would expect them to have some sort of set doctrine, this is a summer camp where minor children go without their parents - they should not be baptizing anyone without the family there to give consent anyway so it's not clear why age and method needed to be opined upon. There were quite a few other nitpicky things like that where the details of belief shouldn't really affect the camp's ability to provide services to children with special needs.

I later found out that the name of the camp has Christian overtones (it's based on putting together abbreviated words so it's not something you'd guess without knowing what the pieces stand for; I had assumed it was a Native American name) but until I stumbled upon their statement of faith I had no idea.

[THERetroGamerNY]

1 hour ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I think what you are thinking of are actual, established denominations and "reformed" in our context is Kevin Swanson, Wildlife Biologist Botkin, Scott Brown, "kirks" and craziness. These are hyper-Calvinists and are caught in all sorts of crazy like the historic cosplay from VF (which still goes on- see the Boyer Sisters and others), an odd view of history, homeschools, has bizarre church "covenants" and all sorts of other nonsense that would send most people screaming. These fundies are as wacked as every other type  but out a prettier, more monied face on it.

The way I look at it, even those associated with a real, established denomination are really under the cult of personality of the particular leader.

Yeah, silly me, I attempted to logically list the tenants of the major reformed churches, and forgot this was an insane, perverted, child-trafficking asshole we're discussing. No wonder Vaughn only said he was "reformed" - idiot probably doesn't even know exactly what that means either, O_o

And isn't that a pretty watered-down use of "cult of personality"? Weber was pretty clear when he listed the requirements for that, and not even the Pope fits that classification.

[refugee]

18 hours ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

What @Palimpsest pretty much said. I'll list the official church lines of belief, but the chief issue with the people that we diss here on FJ is that they say they are such-and-such, but their actions are wildly off-track and dangerous... so I'm not sure what assistance this will be.

Calvanism is...
Based on the works of John Calvin.
Five points of Calvinism:
- "Total depravity". Mankind's sin has spread to every aspect of his being, because of the fall of Adam. Since the average person has this "total inability" to get outside of sin, he is unable to even understand the gospel unless God intervenes. This intervention is in the form of the Holy Spirit.
- "Unconditional election". Predestination basically. God has divided-up mankind into "the elected", and the rest. The elected includes all those whom God has chosen to make knowledgeable about himself. The rest will remain ignorant, and they are going to Hell.
- "Limited Atonement". Jesus did not die to save all humans, but only to atone specific sins of the sinners selected to be saved.
- "Irresistible grace". Every human God has chosen will find the grace of God. These elected people cannot resist the grace of God.
- "Perseverance of the Saints." Once saved, always saved.

The above is called "TULIP" - first letter of each key tenant.

Reformed Christian is generally...
They are against abortion.
They are for birth control, believing family size is between them and God.
The Bible is infallible.
Capital punishment is considered a last resort by them.
They believe in the separation of church and state.
They reject evolution.
They support dancing.
They are against divorce.
I think they are generally amillennialist? I'm a little fuzzy on that.
They are against movies that do not promote Godly values.
Homosexuality is a sin.
They accept the morning-after pill, because they view rape as horrific.
They allow women in ecclesiastical office.
They strong advise all children to attend a religious school.
They do hold meetings to discuss how their beliefs, and theology, should adapt with new scientific information, how that info is viewed against the Bible, etc. This has led to letting women hold ecclesiastical office, etc.

Gothardism...
Is a parachurch (an allegedly non-denominational drop-in supplement for any church).
Never abort.
Never use birth control.
Overpopulation is a myth.
Unless the woman cries out during a rape, she is at fault.
The Bible is infallible, and should be used and extrapolated to every single decision in your life, from how to dress; how to stand there with a happy smile; to how to hire a secretary - I'm surprised toilet selection isn't in there.
Church and state should not be separated - this is a war of us vs. them, and God needs all the babies we can produce to help overwhelm the opposition.
Reject evolution.
No dancing.
No divorce.
Accept authority in your life (patriarchy. Umbrellas of protection. Chains of authority).
A woman that has lost her virginity has lost her purity. If she is married, the grace of marriage absolves that impurity - divorce loses that grace.
Against TV, movies, and media that doesn't either hit neutral ground, or promote God.
No women in office. Pretty much all women can do is be homemakers.
Forget even religious schooling: Homeschool.
Don't spare the rod: Beat the child.
Tons of other minor things, such as not wearing clothing that is of mixed fabrics
Strict man-female gender roles. Homosexuality is a choice, and a perversion. And there is a "gay agenda" to overthrow the Godly structure of traditional marriage.

I'm not well versed on Vision Forum. They are defunct, so I never bothered to review their history. They struck me as all of Gothardism, plus "silly woman, you're not even really a human!" shit. Plus they seemed to produce their own line of media products to be selected by their followers.

And then there are the hyper-calvinists, who are an odd brand of their own. They can be Baptist or Presbyterian or other denomination/church with "reformed" in the title (like Doug Wilson's CREC). From our experience (sadly, and wish we'd never heard of this crowd, much less immersed ourselves in them):

Springboarding off TRNY's description of general reformed xtianity:

They are against abortion and birth control. Let god plan your family for you. "He will never give you more than you can handle."
The Bible is infallible and contains everything needed for life.
Capital punishment is discussed among the theonomists in the crowd as a viable solution to homosexuality and rebellious teens. (But only among the true believers. I know this only because I overheard a conversation going on among the elites. Sickening, and played a part in our beginning to pull away.)
They believe in the separation of church and state. (Amen. They absolutely don't believe in a government military. Militia is the way to go. An F-16 or tank in every believer's backyard...)
They reject evolution. Absolutely! Six-day creation!
They support dancing. But only *specific* god-approved dancing. English country dancing (think Jane Austen period pieces) for the unmarried, with lots of rules attached. (Never dance more than two times with the same partner, for example.) In some circles, waltzing is okay for married and engaged couples. Drinking and smoking is fine, too, within limits. Wine for everyone (including children if they do paedocommunion), and beer (or whiskey) and cigars for the men while they're sitting around applying the bible to every aspect of everyone else's life.
They are against divorce.
I think they are generally amillennialist? I'm a little fuzzy on that. -- I'm fuzzy on it, too, but the church we came out of preached no Tribulation or Rapture, more like god was going to bring about his kingdom on earth. Toward the end it got crazier, with the likes of Tim Bayly stating that god built his kingdom more through the faithful bearing and raising children, than through evangelism.
They are against movies that do not promote Godly values.
Homosexuality is a sin. (I overheard some of the elites in our crowd seriously discussing the merits of OT punishments, which included stoning homosexuals. They believe it's a choice, and a proclivity. I think I used that word right. Not completely sure.)
They accept the morning-after pill, because they view rape as horrific. Never. As they are rabid proponents of modesty and the purity culture, the rape was probably the woman's fault anyway, in their view. The baby is an innocent party and shouldn't be punished for the sin of the "parents".
They allow women in ecclesiastical office. NEVER!!!!!!! (are there enough exclamation points in the world?) Women are special, cherished, equal to men in terms of salvation but different in "role" -  in practical working out, this means inferior in every way, looked down on, disregarded. "Cherished" only if they keep to their place.
They strong advise all children to attend a religious school. Homeschooling is the only godly way to teach children. (Doug Wilson is an exception; he believes in religious school. I think for him the "only" involves religious school under his direct influence and control.) Early education is the way to go. Start forcing kids to sit still and trace letters as soon as possible, even as young as two or three. Also, the Ezzos are the standard for child-rearing. (So are the Pearls, though few would admit it. They practice what the Pearls advocate, but consider the Pearls to be uneducated hillbillies.)
They do hold meetings to discuss how their beliefs, and theology, should adapt with new scientific information, how that info is viewed against the Bible, etc. This has led to letting women hold ecclesiastical office, etc. Not in the hyper-reformed crowd. Oh, they hold meetings and seminars, but the bible.wins.every.time. (At least, their preferred interpretation of it.)

Come to think of it, when I look at the ATI list I quoted, though they look down on Gothard as somehow uncouth, they do subscribe to an awful lot of gothardite practice.

[Elegant Mess]

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Oh, but practically anyone can tell you that you are not the "Right Kind of Christian" and try to convert you to the correct path.  You don't have to believe them though.

I think this issue, along with the isolation that we see so commonly among fundies, could be adding to why we see so many adult "arrows" failing to take flight.  I mean, someone could introduce one of the over-30 Arndt manboys to Sarah Maxwell, but theological differences between the two families are going to nix any possible courtship. 

[Anonymousguest]

I have heard Kevin Swanson and his ilk described as neo-reformed it neo-fundamentalists. I think they are a small fringe element, with really loud voices. I believe his church is technically Presbyterian, but obviously he believes in a brand of reformed doctrine that is far from what the Presbyterian USA believes. There is nothing specifically in the reformed doctrine that would address social issues, or things like how people school their children, find spouses, run their homes, relate to their wives, etc. And obviously some of those ideas run across doctrinal or theological beliefs, as Bill Gothard isn't reformed, but he had many of the same ideas as Kevin Swanson. 

"Reformed" is not a good descriptor of how fundamental one is, and I think that word is being used incorrectly in many posts on here, starting with TRG post. His definition of reformed has nothing to do with reformed doctrine, which is synonymous with Calvinism. People seem to be using "reformed" to mean something like"fundamentalism". 

[nelliebelle1197]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

INCH = Information Network of Christian Homeschooling.  Yes, they would have a statement of faith.

It would be interesting if your fundy-lite friend goes and you try to pick her brain a bit.

However, it is highly unlikely that the Keilens would attend this conference because INCH is direct competition for ATI and the ATI conferences (and for all we know Brandon and Michael are already on the move to Big Sandy with the rest of the staff).  INCH is the wrong kind of Christian for IBLP/ATI true believers.  It seems more Fundylite - Evangelical.  I only took a quick look though.

It is not impossible that IBLP/ATI homeschoolers (especially the TV Bateses and Duggars) would be paid to speak at INCH - or any other homeschooling conference - but I don't recognize any ATI names on the INCH speakers list this year.

The presence of a CollegePlus speaker doesn't mean much.  CollegePlus markets itself to all homeschoolers.  Not all homeschoolers are Christian or Fundy.  Many non-Christian homeschoolers express frustration that homeschooling conferences and materials are dominated by Christianity.

ETA.  to the bolded - did you mean Voddie Baucham?  Last seen wandering around Zambia in a white suit.  There is a guy on the speakers list that looks a bit like him.  Kevin Waterman.

Yeah, I don't know why we'd expect to see any of our major players at this one. Totally agree with you, Madam P.

15 minutes ago, Anonymousguest said:

I have heard Kevin Swanson and his ilk described as neo-reformed it neo-fundamentalists. I think they are a small fringe element, with really loud voices. I believe his church is technically Presbyterian, but obviously he believes in a brand of reformed doctrine that is far from what the Presbyterian USA believes. There is nothing specifically in the reformed doctrine that would address social issues, or things like how people school their children, find spouses, run their homes, relate to their wives, etc. And obviously some of those ideas run across doctrinal or theological beliefs, as Bill Gothard isn't reformed, but he had many of the same ideas as Kevin Swanson. 

"Reformed" is not a good descriptor of how fundamental one is, and I think that word is being used incorrectly in many posts on here, starting with TRG post. His definition of reformed has nothing to do with reformed doctrine, which is synonymous with Calvinism. People seem to be using "reformed" to mean something like"fundamentalism". 

This is what I was trying to get at, but not as concisely as you, above.

[Palimpsest]

16 minutes ago, Elegant Mess said:

I think this issue, along with the isolation that we see so commonly among fundies, could be adding to why we see so many adult "arrows" failing to take flight.  I mean, someone could introduce one of the over-30 Arndt manboys to Sarah Maxwell, but theological differences between the two families are going to nix any possible courtship. 

Exactly.  The isolation and all these incredibly "important" doctrinal beliefs put a real clamp on the marriage options for some of these young people.

There are also those families who have the courtship questionnaires with 100+ questions to rule out any doctrinal differences.  As it turns out, that is not always a guarantee of a happy marriage because people can lie on the application.  Another issue is broken courtships where the fathers agree to the courtship initially and then insist that the children break off the courtship/engagement if they find a flaw in doctrine.  Sarah Smith (now happily married, I think) wrote a really interesting post about the breaking off of one of her courtships - not the one to Christopher Maxwell but to another guy - whose father dumped her as unworthy, IIRC.

I can think of one other family who were really good examples of both the above that we followed on FJ.  The daughter had to be rescued from an abusive marriage and the son had his courtship ended by the two fathers. I am almost reluctant to bring up that family again because they actually got the daughter out of the marriage, rethought the whole approach, and are now practically mainstream Christian.  The young people seem to be doing very well today and deserve their privacy.

[Palimpsest]

38 minutes ago, Anonymousguest said:

I have heard Kevin Swanson and his ilk described as neo-reformed it neo-fundamentalists. I think they are a small fringe element, with really loud voices. I believe his church is technically Presbyterian, but obviously he believes in a brand of reformed doctrine that is far from what the Presbyterian USA believes. There is nothing specifically in the reformed doctrine that would address social issues, or things like how people school their children, find spouses, run their homes, relate to their wives, etc. And obviously some of those ideas run across doctrinal or theological beliefs, as Bill Gothard isn't reformed, but he had many of the same ideas as Kevin Swanson. 

"Reformed" is not a good descriptor of how fundamental one is, and I think that word is being used incorrectly in many posts on here, starting with TRG post. His definition of reformed has nothing to do with reformed doctrine, which is synonymous with Calvinism. People seem to be using "reformed" to mean something like"fundamentalism". 

Part of the problem is that many of the Christian Patriarchal Movement - the Swansons, Doug Phillipses, Sproul, Jr.s, Bauchams, and Doug Wilsons call themselves "Reformed."

You have to look at the Church Covenants and Statements of Faith to winkle out that they are neo-fundamentalists.

[Anonymousguest]

6 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Part of the problem is that many of the Christian Patriarchal Movement - the Swansons, Doug Phillipses, Sproul, Jr.s, Bauchams, and Doug Wilsons call themselves "Reformed."

You have to look at the Church Covenants and Statements of Faith to winkle out that they are neo-fundamentalists.

Well, they are reformed doctrinally speaking. The confusing part is that is not what makes them right, oh so very far right, of mainstream. I admit that they do tend to use that reformed label as a way of saying they are somehow more enlightened and spiritual than everyone else. 

[FundieFarmer]

26 minutes ago, Anonymousguest said:

Well, they are reformed doctrinally speaking.

Right, but in the same way that religions as a whole can be painted with a broad brush, so can anyone who calls themselves "reformed". That's why I wasn't very thrilled when someone upthread said they took it as a red flag- it doesn't have to be. 

You've got your rather liberal YRR, you've got your super Orthodox but still reserved reformers, you've got your total lunatics like Doug Wilson & this guy, you've got your PCA-ers who can just look like regular conservatives...there's not really a rule for what a reformed person looks like- and there's not even a rule for what reformed doctrine looks like.

Some reformers drink...some don't.

Some reformers wear only floor-length skirts...some don't.

Some reformers head cover...some don't.

Some reformers hate birth control...some don't. 

Some reformers believe in 6 day creation...some don't.

Some swear by science...some ignore it entirely.

I mean, you really don't know what you're going to get. Even within the reformed churches I've attended, there's disagreement on things. I agree that there is confusion in this thread by considering "reformed" and "fundamentalist" to be synonymous (and granted, the crazies who created this "retreat" don't help that perception). There are fundamentalist reformers, but there are plenty of reformers who aren't fundamentalists. 

To be fair...you can get that with any faith, any denomination. Same way the Bible can be interpreted a million different ways, so can the reformed denomination....just like any other :/

37 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Part of the problem is that many of the Christian Patriarchal Movement - the Swansons, Doug Phillipses, Sproul, Jr.s, Bauchams, and Doug Wilsons call themselves "Reformed."

You have to look at the Church Covenants and Statements of Faith to winkle out that they are neo-fundamentalists.

YES YES YES YES YES. 

[THERetroGamerNY]

I should have heeded @Palimpsest sage, darkly-foreboding warning of her nightmarish Venn diagram of yore, and not ventured into the murky waters.

My list of reformed attributes needs to be reformed in of itself!

I now see that "reformed" can be applied anywhere ... the multiplicity of fundies multiplies further!

I'm not even sure that this impossibly mind-boggling Tree of World Religions even got it all right

http://funki.com.ua/ru/portfolio/lab/world-religions-tree/

SEND THE RESCUE FERRETS!

*runs away screaming*

[Gemini]

@uber frau and @FundieFarmer

That makes much more sense, Thanks for taking the time to reply  

I always find the seewalds to come across as pretty arrogant, and assumed they considered themselves to be 'one of the saved'. That's what baffled me! 

[FundieFarmer]

Just now, Gemini said:

@uber frau and @FundieFarmer

That makes much more sense, Thanks for taking the time to reply  

I always find the seewalds to come across as pretty arrogant, and assumed they considered themselves to be 'one of the saved'. That's what baffled me! 

A lot of people do see it that way, though. And then they use Election as an excuse to be an asshole, and not do anything, because it's totally a get out of jail free card since you're already saved, right?? LOL. 

 It's awful and not at all what it's about. The way I understand it is, just because you think you might be part of the Elect doesn't mean it's a get out of jail free card. I was always taught that it comes with even greater responsibility to follow the calling of God. You need to be an even better example of what He calls you to do. So that would definitely mean not acting Holier Than Thou and definitely not handing out just one crayon. If you do the Christian things outlined in the Bible, it's a huge undertaking. So there really wouldn't be any room for the stupid behavior of these fundies! 

[refugee]

1 hour ago, Anonymousguest said:

I have heard Kevin Swanson and his ilk described as neo-reformed it neo-fundamentalists. I think they are a small fringe element, with really loud voices. I believe his church is technically Presbyterian, but obviously he believes in a brand of reformed doctrine that is far from what the Presbyterian USA believes. There is nothing specifically in the reformed doctrine that would address social issues, or things like how people school their children, find spouses, run their homes, relate to their wives, etc. And obviously some of those ideas run across doctrinal or theological beliefs, as Bill Gothard isn't reformed, but he had many of the same ideas as Kevin Swanson. 

"Reformed" is not a good descriptor of how fundamental one is, and I think that word is being used incorrectly in many posts on here, starting with TRG post. His definition of reformed has nothing to do with reformed doctrine, which is synonymous with Calvinism. People seem to be using "reformed" to mean something like"fundamentalism". 

It is because they self-identify as "reformed" -- if you ask them about their beliefs, they'll say they are "reformed" -- there may be a lot of reformed people out there who aren't batsh** crazy, but the reason the word "reformed" is used in conjunction with these people is because that is their label for themselves.

I suppose in deference to all the reformed people out there who are not on the lunatic fringe, we could call them here "pseudo-reformed". Not sure how practical that is.

Because of our immersion in that culture, I have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "reformed". We called ourselves that, our culture called itself that, and that same culture that we thankfully managed to separate from, though it was (and is, in terms of PTSD) painful, has forever poisoned that word in my mind. I apologize to sane people who call themselves reformed, but I can't seem to help it.

[FundieFarmer]

2 minutes ago, refugee said:

It is because they self-identify as "reformed" -- if you ask them about their beliefs, they'll say they are "reformed" -- there may be a lot of reformed people out there who aren't batsh** crazy, but the reason the word "reformed" is used in conjunction with these people is because that is their label for themselves.

I suppose in deference to all the reformed people out there who are not on the lunatic fringe, we could call them here "pseudo-reformed". Not sure how practical that is.

Because of our immersion in that culture, I have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "reformed". We called ourselves that, our culture called itself that, and that same culture that we thankfully managed to separate from, though it was (and is, in terms of PTSD) painful, has forever poisoned that word in my mind. I apologize to sane people who call themselves reformed, but I can't seem to help it.

That's a completely fair and reasonable reaction, @refugee. I have that reaction when I see their abusive bullshit too. I'm sorry you went through that.

[formergothardite]

11 hours ago, Gemini said:

Only heard of this branch of Christianity when it was mentioned on the Dugger threads and it baffles me that, with their logic, Hitler could be sat on a fluffy cloud, whilst Mother Theresa burns!

The idea of Hitler making it to heaven isn't just a Calvinist idea. I was IFB and then Southern Baptist and it was discussed that if Hitler repented of his sins and asked Jesus into his heart right before he died he would be in heaven, while if someone like Mother Teresa*, if she wasn't really saved, could be in hell. Calvinism isn't any less logical, IMO, than the idea that a Nazi guard could make it to heaven if he got saved while the Jewish folks were all in hell. 

*in real life Mother Teresa was far from a saint and just an all around not nice person. Much like the Bateses she was able to craft a public persona that made people forget about her dark side. 

The more time I spend out of religion the less sense any of it makes and all the arguments about predestination and reformed vs. not-reformed just start getting confusing. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

2 hours ago, FundieFarmer said:

Right, but in the same way that religions as a whole can be painted with a broad brush, so can anyone who calls themselves "reformed". That's why I wasn't very thrilled when someone upthread said they took it as a red flag- it doesn't have to be. 

You've got your rather liberal YRR, you've got your super Orthodox but still reserved reformers, you've got your total lunatics like Doug Wilson & this guy, you've got your PCA-ers who can just look like regular conservatives...there's not really a rule for what a reformed person looks like- and there's not even a rule for what reformed doctrine looks like.

Some reformers drink...some don't.

Some reformers wear only floor-length skirts...some don't.

Some reformers head cover...some don't.

Some reformers hate birth control...some don't. 

Some reformers believe in 6 day creation...some don't.

Some swear by science...some ignore it entirely.

I mean, you really don't know what you're going to get. Even within the reformed churches I've attended, there's disagreement on things. 

What I don't understand is: when people label themselves "reformed" what are they identifying with? I mean there are so many differences between "reformed" that I don't understand what the common denominator is, if there is one. But if there isn't one why do they all identify with the same word? Sorry if my questions seem stupid, I am feeling really dense right now.

[Mercer]

I have the opposite reaction to the word "Reformed"; I associate the word with the Calvin College type folks who are by and large pretty sensible in my experience (though I don't particularly agree with some of their theology,) so I always have to do a mental readjustment to apply the term to the fundies who use the same label.

[CyborgKin]

6 hours ago, docmom said:

If you believe God is all-knowing then this type of philosophy actually makes sense.  Even if people have free will to choose to follow Jesus, God knows if you'll take that path or not.  He would also know which babies and children will die before they can realistically "choose".

What the point is of creating a world where the majority of people will live for a short time before spending eternity in hell, I don't know.  I also don't know what the point of sending Jesus would have been because again God already knew from the beginning of time what every single person would do thus the influence of Jesus would be zero.  And that's where this all falls apart in my opinion.

 

You need to think fourth dimensionally, Marty!

[Gemini]

3 hours ago, FundieFarmer said:

A lot of people do see it that way, though. And then they use Election as an excuse to be an asshole, and not do anything, because it's totally a get out of jail free card since you're already saved, right?? LOL. 

 It's awful and not at all what it's about. The way I understand it is, just because you think you might be part of the Elect doesn't mean it's a get out of jail free card. I was always taught that it comes with even greater responsibility to follow the calling of God. You need to be an even better example of what He calls you to do. So that would definitely mean not acting Holier Than Thou and definitely not handing out just one crayon. If you do the Christian things outlined in the Bible, it's a huge undertaking. So there really wouldn't be any room for the stupid behavior of these fundies! 

It must take an incredible amount of self importance for someone to believe that they are part of the elect, which in turn is most unchristian like.

I can't imagine how some kids cope with this mindset tho! I know that I, as a child with a very black and white theory of what was and wasn't fair, would have crumbled if I thought I was potentially going to hell no matter how I behaved!

 

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

The idea of Hitler making it to heaven isn't just a Calvinist idea. I was IFB and then Southern Baptist and it was discussed that if Hitler repented of his sins and asked Jesus into his heart right before he died he would be in heaven, while if someone like Mother Teresa*, if she wasn't really saved, could be in hell. Calvinism isn't any less logical, IMO, than the idea that a Nazi guard could make it to heaven if he got saved while the Jewish folks were all in hell. 

*in real life Mother Teresa was far from a saint and just an all around not nice person. Much like the Bateses she was able to craft a public persona that made people forget about her dark side. 

The more time I spend out of religion the less sense any of it makes and all the arguments about predestination and reformed vs. not-reformed just start getting confusing. 

 

I'm actually sat here feeling really let down! I always thought of Mother Theresa as some beautiful spirited super hero! A quick Google search challenged that!  Off to do some research! 

[dramallama]

6 hours ago, docmom said:

If you believe God is all-knowing then this type of philosophy actually makes sense.  Even if people have free will to choose to follow Jesus, God knows if you'll take that path or not.  He would also know which babies and children will die before they can realistically "choose".

What the point is of creating a world where the majority of people will live for a short time before spending eternity in hell, I don't know.  I also don't know what the point of sending Jesus would have been because again God already knew from the beginning of time what every single person would do thus the influence of Jesus would be zero.  And that's where this all falls apart in my opinion.

 

Yeah, as someone who was raised in a thoroughly non-religious home, who grew up to be an atheist (not in the "I definitively know there is no god" sense, but rather the "I have seen no evidence that there is a god so until shown otherwise I have no reason to believe there is one" sense) I've always thought the predestination idea took the implications of an omnipotent god to their logical end.  As shitty as the idea is that vast numbers of people were created for the purpose of rotting in hell for an eternity, without any chance of escaping that fate, it makes sense if you really believe god is all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, etc.  It just makes that god sound like a complete asshole.

3 hours ago, FundieFarmer said:

Right, but in the same way that religions as a whole can be painted with a broad brush, so can anyone who calls themselves "reformed". That's why I wasn't very thrilled when someone upthread said they took it as a red flag- it doesn't have to be. 

I admit that I, too, have a bit of a knee-jerk "DANGER! DANGER!" internal alarm when I hear someone describe themselves as Reformed, because my exposure to those people has been limited to the smug, self-righteous couple I previously described, and VF types I've read about here.  Maybe it's that the people who wear that word like a badge and scream it from the rooftops to everyone they meet are the crazy ones and so hearing that word, it's likely to be in the context of those people, whereas the normal, sane people don't bring it up except in relevant theological discussions.

Now I have a chubby tuxedo cat purring like a tractor and trying VERY HARD to stomp all over my keyboard so I'd best stop here lest he add his two cents on the subject.  

 

[FundieFarmer]

I guess for me, saying I'm reformed really only comes up within Presbyterian circles (like dramallama said, I wouldn't run around screaming IM REFORMED, IM REFORMED!!!!) where it's relevant. There, it tends to be an exact identifier of what you believe. But then, Mr. FF's family has a lot of pastors in it and my family is involved in their church, and we are involved with ministries with people of other denominations who ask about our denominational affiliation, so it comes up a lot more. Anywhere other than that or FJ, I wouldn't say it unless I was asked.

The other thing is that being where it's the theological norm, but more liberal than the freaks who claim it, I didn't know how twisty it could get. I mean, I knew it could get bad, and manipulative- and I've discussed that before- but not the truly nasty crap spewed by the Wilson, Philips, etc. Now that I'm older and have been exposed to their shit, I try to let an honest picture of me do the talking (flawed but trying my best) and not lead with REFORMED REFORMED REFORMED.

If that answered any questions. [emoji15]

[formergothardite]

15 minutes ago, Gemini said:

It must take an incredible amount of self importance for someone to believe that they are part of the elect, which in turn is most unchristian like.

I can't imagine how some kids cope with this mindset tho! I know that I, as a child with a very black and white theory of what was and wasn't fair, would have crumbled if I thought I was potentially going to hell no matter how I behaved!

No more self importance than believing one's belief system is the One True Way and all other religions are doomed to an eternity of hell. I wasn't raised believing in predestination and so to me it always seemed strange, but thinking about it from a logical perspective, it does rather make sense. If God is all knowing, then he would know who is going to get saved before people are even born.

Mother Teresa really did know how to put on a good show of being pious and even today people are resistant to the idea that she just wasn't a good human. She was corrupt, but people are sentimentally attached to the idea that she was a kind, good person who spent her life helping others. 

[Fascinated]

As usual, I don't get it.  Growing up I figured there are people who believe in God (the religious), and the rest who don't (the atheists).  I was content with this deep understanding.  In high school I took a World Religions course and learned a little more about different theologies.  (I do remember thinking that Judaism made the most 'sense' to me at the time.)

This discussion has been so edifying and I appreciate the vast knowledge here on FJ.  It truly is fascinating.  

Reading it all, and not comprehending much, I still feel as I did as a very young girl.  Which is: life is way less complicated for those who don't believe in a god.  WAY less.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this fascinating discussion.