The Calvinist/rationalist view

I am an Orthodox Christian in the lineage of Calvinist theology. That is, I believe in original sin, and the corrupt nature of man. I believe in predestination because I believe in an all-knowing, omniscient and omnipotent God who willed and decreed the final outcome of civilization here on earth. It is irreconcilable to me to think that God is omniscient and omnipotent and the great and intelligent designer while being one who does not know how the story ends. Yet, I do believe in free will as well. I believe that God gives us the mind, power and gifts to make decisions that while not ultimately defines our fate, ultimately puts us in circumstances that allow us be used by Him to reach out to others. Our free will enables us to reach people who are not predestined by God to be reached out to by us. Our free will enables us to make choices that lead to who we will reach out to. God's will is that we reach out to people - but perhaps he does not define who those are specifically.

I believe that men who believe in God but not Christ as our savior are not Orthodox Christians, but Christians in the tribal sense. They unite because they are descendants of those who believed that Christ had a role in defining morality in this world. Am I wrong for accepting those who do not ultimately believe that Christ is the way? Am I unequally yoked by accepting one who does not believe that Christ is the way, and not just a way to receiving the gift of salvation? This is a challenge for me because while I think I am to only be with someone with the same understanding of Christianity - original sin and a corrupt nature - I can grasp the good intentions of such forefathers who tried to adjust the strict view in order to save men from ultimate destruction or secularism. Men who are of the lineage of the New England theology have cultivated their views in a culture and environment that bred such liberal views of Christianity. Am I better than them or more holy? No. Am I more Christian than them? I think not. Can I align myself with them, however? Yes and no. Are they not as much a seeker as I am? Do they not raise questions that are valid? Am I to dismiss them? I cannot.

Yes, I am a product of rationalism and strict Calvinism as much as men are products of their culture and upbringing.

But I cannot reconcile this selfish desire in us with the notion that men are also moral agents. If we are moral agents with the ability to do good, why then this selfish nature? What is it that drives us to selfishness and freedom and liberation of having to serve others before ourselves? I cannot reconcile not having a corrupt nature with also having a tendency to be selfish. What is the origin of selfishness if not the corrupt nature of men? Isn't selfishness sin? If we are prone to be selfish, then we're inherently sinful. 

Am I better than others that have not the same view? I am not. Therefore how are we to reconcile differences? That is the question I struggle with.

Comments

[wavegenius]

to me..i know god is there..because when i pray, he tells me where the wave count is..or somehow it just shows up..

i try not to ask, because I already know he's there..

[Rob]

Take five minutes and listen to this.

iridesnow.com/sounds/ThereIsNoGod.mp3

(Gotta put the http in front because your comments don't allow links.)

No, it won't change your mind, but it expresses the viewpoint of people like me so well.

[Fred]

Fascinating to learn of your faith in a blogsphere like this where the greater interest of readers is making financial gain. I can only say that there are among us who struggle to be in this world and yet faithfully, try not to be of this world.

[gem-x]

Issues, Rob. You got issues.

[Professor John]

Yes, Rob definitely has "issues", as noted by gem-x. They are more serious than you can imagine, as I noted in my other post in this faith portion of Bambi's blog. This is where I note it is clear in the Bible of individuals who make this exact claim of "no God!"

They are in fact Fools (Psa 14:1/53:1). And as such do not deserve a thorough response due to their obvious corrupt mental faculties (that are clearly spelled out by one of the wisest man in history, Solomon [Prov 26:4]).

I feel for you Bambi, as it would seem you are genuinely "searching" for truth. As any good researcher and Berean [Acts 17:10-11], you are on the right path of continually seeking God and His limitless truth (as this is exactly what He says we [men/women] ought to all do (Psa 27:8)).

So truth does not come in some instantaneous “flash” whereby we, are at any particular moment, miraculously know all things! As any good parent, God feeds us individually, according to His perfect will and plan in our lives, with the exact “truth's” (Deut 29:29) that He has for us. Since we are his workmanship (Eph 2:10), He has a “plan” for each and every one of us who are His (Rom 8:28), whereby it can be truly be said that, “ all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.”

I learned this the hard way in my own life. As an academic and intellectual person myself, one desire I've always had to try to not only seek God but to try to "figure Him out." This pursuit lead to folly and near insanity. As I later learned, this is always the desire of man. If not to figure God out, then to blatantly rebel against all that is “spiritual.” (or even attempt to ignore the concept or existence of spirit by embracing atheistic and/or evolution [theory] to justify the positivist/quantitative viewpoint of only a tangible reality, but at the same time give lip-service to the existence of the obvious unfathomable intangible [i.e. – the intellect, emotions, the soul, etc.]).

Pertaining to your discussion of Calvinism, it would be good to preface exactly what is a Calvinistic versus opposing Arminianist viewpoint.

A good short booklet on this that explains this in a simplistic view is “Calvinism, Arminianism & The Word of God, By Chuck Smith.” (this and many other free resources can be obtained at CalvaryChapel.com, under the title link “Costa Mesa” and “eBook.”), of which I am not affiliated, but do agree with many of their basic tenets.

In a nutshell, Calvin basically held to an orthodox view of the “depravity” of man, as you noted as the corrupt nature of man, as observed in his sin. Calvin’s view was only bastardized later on by many of his wayward followers (and disciples) who twisted his words to supposedly imply that God specifically “creates” individuals to be preordained for whatever eternal state He implacably dictates. In other words, a person is “fixed” and automatically destined for a definitive future in either heaven or in hell. But then, as Bambi rightly observed, there is the monkey wrench called “free will.” Then again, there is the other, just as equal, concept of Gods just and holy nature (Psa 7:11/Isa 45:21). As Abraham rightly noted, (Gen 18:25) “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” God is a JUST god, and being so has to give all the opportunity and open chance to repent (and accept), otherwise why give an “invitation” (i.e. – “whosoever” John 3:16, etc, etc.)—It would be lip-service and sick joke to do so! That would be like someone starting a lottery without any [real] opportunity of winning!—This is obviously ludicrous! (which God is NOT!- 1Cor 14:33)

Lastly, “knowing” how something ends, and dictating how it ends are two entirely different things (I personally believe that man is the ONE exception in all creation to how this works).

But I also agree with Pastor Smith, that it is not an issue that Christians should fight over or divide, and is also something in the realm of God (like the trinity, etc.) that our puny minds cannot completely understand or grasp. So, I would encourage continued study and prayer.

Regarding associating with individuals who believe in God, but may not necessarily believe that Christ is the only way—This question all rest in whether one believes (100%) in what John 14:6 says. As it is written – “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Pretty clear cut—either this is a lie,.. or the truth! (Your choice!, I’ll take the latter.)

But that is the key-determining factor of all “religions” of the world. Do we all have the same God?, or is there a difference? If we do have the same God then there is instantaneous intellectual chaos! If we don’t all have the same God then it immediately logically explains the enormous and monumental differences between the different doctrines and “holy books” of the different faiths (Koran, Bible, etc.)

Paul answers this supposed paradox in 1Cor 5. He notes in vs. 9-10:
“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did NOT mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.”

If you will read on then you will see that Paul was very clear in his logic and position. We have to use wisdom and discernment to know good from evil (1 Thess 5:21-22), and to keep our distance from it in the same way the Joseph fled from Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:13). Especially in those cases in the church where it [sin] can bring us and others in the body down (1Cor 5:6-8).

Overall, like it or not, God many times forces us to make a choice for one direction or the other (light or dark, good or evil, Him or the Devil). As He did in a perfect real-life illustration in Josh 24:15 and 1Kings 18:21. With the latter, the exasperated Prophet proclaims, “How long are you going to waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him! But if Baal is God, then follow him!”

So try as we may, we are no different than our first parents, Adam and Eve. Hopefully you all will make better decisions then they (the Key is found in Prov 3:5-7, the primary word being ALL.) The motto in all this?– God does not like double-minded Yo Yo’s [James 1:6-8/1Kings 18:21] —It makes Him SICK!! - Rev. 3:16

[Bambi]

Professor John:
Thank you for your overwhelming response to my latest insert.

[JC]

Bambi, very fun to learn of your pursuit of truth. For anybody looking out there looking for real answers to tough questions about God and Christianity, i found everystudent.com to be a great resource.
JC

[Rob]

I posted a link to an audio file which presents a belief counter to the original post. In response, I'm told I have "issues", that I'm a "fool", and that I have "obvious corrupt mental faculties".

Interesting.

[Professor John]

Rob,

The Bible notes that if I answer a fool then I am in danger of becoming as he. But since God is, "not willing that any should perish (even fools), but that all should come to repentance" (2Pet 3:9), I feel compelled [by Him] to respond due to God's abundant (unexplainable) love and grace that He has for you. I'd like to also provide everyone else with something to contemplate to better explain my last post and eliminate any impression of personal offense or "mean-spiritedness" (as liberals always say).

As a foundational premise, clearly, this blog posting of Bambi's is on the topic of "faith" and her religious beliefs.

So Robs (no God) response is an affront to the premise and spirit of the discussion/post.

How would it play if you, as a man, went to a maternal mother's site/post and informed them that they didn't really know how it feels to give birth? (or that you knew more than them about labor). Or how would it seem if you, being a rapist, commented and implied to sexually abused women that rape wasn't really all that bad of a thing?!?

If someone wants to express themselves and their ideas, at an atheist or no God believing site, then that is certainly their prerogative to do so, since this is indeed a free [speech] country. But even in a free speech environment, even the Supreme Court has recognized tact and the limits of expressive privilege by not allowing, as an example, someone to shout "fire" in public venues or "highjack" on airplanes.

So if anyone were to throw out all logic and exercise their opinion in the way stated in the prior examples, would it be smart, appropriate, expedient, tactful, prudent or show they're wise? (not a fool)

The highest powers of this nation, or even any person who has even a little bit of common sense, can clearly answer that question.

Interesting indeed.

Scripture is clear what a fool is (check it yourself - Psalms 14:1;53:1; 92:6, 49:10/Proverbs 10:8; 10:10; 10:18; 10:23; 11:29; 12:15; 13:16; 14:3; 14:16; 15:5; 15:7; 17:7; 17:10; 17:12; 17:16; 17:21; 17:24; 17:28; 18:2; 19:1; 19:10; 20:3; 23:9; 24:7; 26:1; 26:4; 26:5; 26:6; 26:8; 26:11; 27:22; 28:26; 29:9; 29:11), so dispute and argue that all you wish with the Biblical evidence. Nothing personal, it's Fact!

The Bible is also clear that faith is, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen” (Heb. 11:1). Being so, God is not something that/who can be empirical or quantitatively “proved” (Since it is impossible to directly see or measure Spirit - John 4:24/Rom 1:20/1Tim 1:17)

But the concept of God is also something that cannot be 100% dis-proved. No sincere scientist on the globe would say that! I know this because I’ve spoke to many of them, and the theorem of the scientific discovery/method says that you can NEVER say that something is proved or disproved unless (or until) you have ALL the facts (and no person at this point can say that.)

Paul noted that there is indeed substantial circumstantial evidence when he claimed, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:20)

Paul's overall thesis basically infers that the magnificence of nature and the awesome examples throughout the vast universe [creation] are evidence of God and that He is!--and this circumstantial evidence, by itself, will be used to convict many on judgment day (2Cor 5:10/Rom. 2:16).

So there are many today who (like Rob) are throwing the dice in life and “gambling” on their eternity. If there is no God and you die then you’ll be OK, in the sense that you won't lose anything. But if there is a God, you die, and you haven’t accepted him then you WILL be in a world of hurt and lose all! So your risk and odds are about 50-50 on nothingness, or hell. If we (believers) die and there is nothing then no big deal (null & void, and no loss), but if there is a God (as we say) then we're the winners!

But I'm only speak hypothetically, since we do indeed believe we know the truth (by faith), so the first point is moot. Our faith doesn't say "if", it says there "is."

So all in the "no God" camp better hope you’re all really LUCKY! The rest of us will follow our own choice and prerogative of faith. Since, as I mentioned, we are in a free country, don’t hate us for exercising what we believe—that God IS!

Gamble if you wish (as you will, again, be without excuse - Rom 1:20).

Lastly, I would encourage the "Robs" of the world to please take a cue from this proverb: "Even fools are thought to be wise when they keep silent; when they keep their mouths shut, they seem intelligent." (Prov 17:28)

[Rob]

Professor John,

"As liberals always say"? Whatever.

Your conjecture that my response was an "affront to the discssion/post" is faulty. A blog which is open to public comments is, almost by definition, opening itself up to differnt points of view. I didn't see any admonitions about not expressing alternative or contrary viewpoints. If Bambi or anyone was offended, then they're free to present their views. Does a free exchange of ideas frighten you?

Your analogies are also faulty. How a woman feels giving birth is obviously something that only a woman could know. But even among women, I'm reasonably certain that various women have various and varied physical and emotional feelings when in labor, perhaps even differences from birth to birth in the cases of women who have multiple children. But religion, and the belief or unbelief, in the existence of a god or creator is common to all humanity and open for free discussion by all, or should be.

A rapist? Are you attempting to relate my non-belief in god and willingness to post a different viewpoint in a public blog to being a rapist? Nice.

Shouting "fire" or "highjack" aren't relevant either. My posting did not put anyone in any danger.

I need to pause for a moment and observe that your lack of sound reasoning is astounding.

You do realize that the term "biblical evidence" is irrelevant to an atheist, right? In any event, I don't care if you believe I'm a fool or not. Nor should you care what I think of you, and I seriously doubt you do!

The following paragraph is the only thing that I agree with from your response:

"But the concept of God is also something that cannot be 100% dis-proved. No sincere scientist on the globe would say that! I know this because I’ve spoke to many of them, and the theorem of the scientific discovery/method says that you can NEVER say that something is proved or disproved unless (or until) you have ALL the facts (and no person at this point can say that.)"

It seems pretty clear that you didn't actually listen to the mp3 file that I posted. It's not trying to prove or disprove anything. It's just a statement of belief that I happen to agree with. Why don't you at least listen to it.

Just an aside, all the evidence gathered so far continues to point to natural, explainable, and provable processes and events for most of the things we used to believe were caused by god (and gods before that). And, so far, there is zero provable, repeatable scientific evidence for the existence of a god or creator. Given the scales so far, I'll put my "faith" in the evidence to date.

As for your contention that I am gambling on my eternity, so be it. If there is a creator, I lose. But I won't become a hypocrite just to try to save my eternal ass by trying to convince myself to believe something that I don't believe.

And you end your post with yet another thinly veiled insult. Good one there, Professor John.

[John C. Randolph]

I'll just throw my $.02 in here.

I'm almost an atheist. I say almost, only because of the impossibility of proving a negative. Nevertheless, one phrase in the bible has always struck me as very profound, and that is "by their fruits, shall ye know them".

This is the touchstone I use to decide whether any proposition is good or bad. Socialism fails immediately, due to about a hundred million deaths at the hands of various regimes that have attempted to impose it. Christianity is a mixed bag, with historical examples ranging from the Borgia popes, to Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

I am perhaps most favorably impressed by a group of Tibetan buddhist monks, who were in San Franciso a few years ago. I remember being outraged by the story at the time, and very, very moved by the sincerity of the Monks.

They were making a mandala in colored sand, a beautiful traditional form of art practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. They were about two weeks into the work, and some woman came in, waving a bible around, shrieking that the design was "demonic", and she started scattering the sand. The monks got around her, and protected her from the very understandably angry crowd.

Now, I know people who would tell me that the woman was heading for heaven, and the monks weren't, because she was a Christian, and they weren't. Somehow, that just doesn't sit right with me.

-jcr

[erik1024]

Hello Bambi.

A very thought provoking blog entry you have here. You claim to be many things: Orthodox Christian, Calvinist, rationalist, and a converted Evangelical Christian (though I'm not sure how you can technically be Orthodox and Evangelical at the same time). Also, from your writing, you appear to be intelligent, humble, passionate, introspective and caring.

I wish I could give you answers, but, in truth, I barely grasp the questions. Broadly, you seem to be seeking a rational for the tragic polarization of our world when what we need is unity. Specifically, you appear to desire guidance for your own personal relationships with those of dissimilar beliefs.

Within the context of your beliefs, I'm going to agree with a prior post and suggest you consult the Bible. It is my understanding that the Bible is the word of God. That it is how God “speaks” to each of us. (Have you ever read a book named “The Alchemist?” It's not about the Bible, but rather God speaking to us if we are willing to listen.)

Of course, there is the dilemma that the message you get may be tainted by the mortal mind and sinful soul. However, as one who is faithful, you should believe that God knows what you need and will not lead you astray. Unless, that is his plan for you (I am not being sarcastic, as this should be consistent with your beliefs in predetermination). I guess my point here is that the message you hear may be different than what others hear. Regardless, it will be the message you need.

Maybe you should know, and possibly figured out, that I am not Christian. I have recommended the Bible purely on your believes. Though I am not a “believer,” I have read (not studied, but read) the Bible. The message I get is “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Also, I hear “Do not judge” and “Anyone who says 'You fool!' is in danger of the fire of hell.” But I would be considered by some to be a fool taking quotes out of context...

Regards and warm wishes to all.

[Dave Scotese]

Wow!

This is SO much fun for me.

I'm still trying to figure out the best thing to say. I think it might be this:

I have no choice but to believe that everyone is in the same position as I am - we do not choose what to believe. Reason imposes our beliefs on us using the evidence heaped into our view, and our choices about what parts of it to ignore. What we believe is the outcome of our ability to reason and our choices about what evidence and conclusions we choose to ignore. Reasoning is universal. I like to think of it as the single gift given to us by God. We can believe he gave us health and parents and all that, but I see those things coming from a long line of evolution. Reason, though, doesn't. It is the essence of my idea of holiness.

The only choice I see humans capable of making is whether to ignore or pay attention. Maintaining a given belief generally requires a person to do some ignoring, unless it becomes a widespread and generally unchallenged belief, such as the belief in gravity. I like to refer to beliefs as working assumptions, but that offends some people - mostly those who find it necessary to ignore some kinds of evidence. Nevertheless, being a slave to my own powers of reasoning, my position on the beliefs that others find important (ie Christ, God, Heaven, Hell) are weak and prone to change as I look at them through different symbolic filters.

Bambi, I applaud your questions. I once had many questions about religion too, but I have given them all up because their answers will not guide my behavior. I have more important questions now, like:
What is a good strategy for distinguishing between the kind of suffering in others that makes them change into better people and the kind that destroys them?
In what ways have I been fooled and not yet figured it out?
What is the simplest way to help others who have been fooled to see the bigger picture?

[Dave Scotese]

I forgot to mention that you did ask a very important question, which I think most people don't consider deeply enough:

Selfishness is a sin, isn't it?

Are you afraid of hurting the people you love by committing sin, or ruining your chances of getting to heaven? Calvinist - so must be hurting others. So I don't know if whether or not it's a sin is important.

I think that selfishness, when used wisely, is not a sin, but a virtue, and not just a virtue, but the source of all virtue. Consider why you want to be good.

I'll leave you with that.

Dave.

[philm]

Bambi,

As a baptized and practicing Orthodox Christian I am a little confused by your terminology.If I may suggest two books: The Orthodox Church --- by Timothy Ware and The Orthodox Way --- by Kallistos Ware.

[Bambi Francisco]

To Dave:

Selfishness is a virtue, as Ayn Rand would say. But is it really selfishness you and she are suggesting? Perhaps it's semantics, but I don't think selfishness is a virtue. What Rand would consider selfishness is what I'd consider accountability and responsibility toward others. We are to pursue our passions, because it is through these passions we can serve others. If we are selfish in these passions, then our ultimate goal is to please ourselves. What joy is there in that? But if we are doing what we enjoy -- and often times spending moments alone studying or working at improving ourselfves -- I do not believe we are so selfish. Rather, I think our passion is a light to this world. We end up giving more than we receive. If we pursue only for the mere reason to feel better about ourselves, I think that is selfish. And, ultimately, I think that is destructive.

[eljay]

Here's my take on the whole thing:

We are here to find our way back to God. Before the fall, we were united with God; but after the fall, we lost our focus on spiritual things and diverted our focus to material things. We lost our awareness that our material world is actually awash in the "real" world, a sea of spirituality.

We are stained by original sin, but we are not inherently sinful by nature. With our free will, we can choose to move closer to God (by doing good) or further from God (by committing sin). (We are not perfect either, so we all commit sins sometimes.)

I think that Jesus atoned for original sin and made it possible for everyone to find their way back to God, but I also think that it is possible for some people to find their way back to God through other religions.

Modern mystics, such as Bede Griffiths and Thomas Merton, have adopted elements of non-Christian religions to strengthen their Christianity. Although there are differences in beliefs among religions, at the heart, all religions try to lead people back to God by loving God and loving others.

As Christians, should we love people who do not share our beliefs? Of course. As individuals, can we share our lives with people who do not share our beliefs? My test is whether a relationship brings both people closer to God or further from God.

[ES]

Eljay,

Perhaps you could show me exactly were in the bible it says “it is possible for some people to find their way back to God through other religions"

[Lefty]

First, fun name!

Second, when you are at your seminary in suburban Philadelphia, you are near very sacred ground that you should go visit. Revolutionaries and Patriots fought and died near Whitemarsh, Valley Forge, Germantown, Paoli, and Trenton, all in the name of a new world concept -- liberty -- that allow things like me to write you here, without the fear of someone showing up in the middle of the night to take me away. Take a SEPTA train to downtown Philly, and go visit the sacred ground of Independence Mall.

Third, perhaps you will discover & explore the spirituality of many of those Revolutionaries — Deism.

Fourth, Ayn Rand’s notion of the virtue of selfishness does not work on the zero-sum paradigm of ‘oneself vs others’, as detractors make her out to suggest. To her, it’s not a matter of whether one is pursuing one’s desires ‘at the expense of others’ or not, as the current stigmatized definition of ‘selfish’ inflicts. It’s rather, should you define yourself, from the get-go, through others first? Or through yourself first?? Rand would posit the second: before you can have a ‘We’, you need to have an ‘I’.

Fifth, I watch KPIX as I live in Mill Valley, CA. If you’re back in the Bay area these days, please know that the salmon are beginning to run in Redwood Creek in Muir Woods. Go check them out if you can and, while there, let the ancient trees introduce you to yet another way to touch God.

Sixth, I agree that Apple’s technology will become just more pervasive and HOORAY FOR THAT ! I’m an Apple technology consultant in Marin, and couldn’t be more pleased with this business increase. People want SIMPLE in their technology. Apple delivers SIMPLE. Don’t be surprised if, at least in the non-corporate markets, more and more people make there next computer a Mac.

[eljay]

ES:

I was expressing my opinion, which is all that I can offer when it comes to these matters, but I think that my opinion is consistent with my religion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved."

Makes sense to me, and we Catholics are not generally considered to be particularly broad-minded or flexible or inclusive! Imagine that.

[Rachel]

The moment you cling on to some traditional way of religion (Calvinist for example) you are confining yourself to the idealogies of people who talked baout this stuff without knowing anything we know today. Calvinists believed that the earth was flat and that the sun goes round the earth.

Your blind sighted conformity to an age old paradigm will lead you to a path that will destroy the power that your "self: has given you.

The question you struggle with "Am I better than others that have not the same view? I am not. Therefore how are we to reconcile differences? That is the question I struggle with. " will bug you as long as you define yourself based on other people's beliefs.

[Rational]

Omnipotent and omniscient? 280 million people woke up with serious hunger pains this morning -- half of them were under age 10. A third of those kids will live and die, knowing nothing but hunger. An equal number will be hungry tomorrow. If this is part of His design and He has the power to change it, but chooses not to, why would you worship him, much less let him use you to reach out to others? He's a right bastard and twisted as well.

[aldrich]

I agree with much of what you have to say. I came out of a heterodox background (I was born a unitarian universalist).

Like you, I am not a pelagian but rather believe that salvation comes from God not from ourselves. Free will and our corrupt nature are not in conflict; we are not robots but neither can we do what we know we should without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Christ came not to define a new morality but a new way of living; one where we become part of the body of christ. As such, we become agents of his love.

As for marrying someone who is not a christian you will become unequally yoked. Marriage is difficult enough without having that kind of gap between you.

We are supposed to be in the world, but not of it. As such, you are to involve yourself in the world and lead by example.

"Am I better than others that have not the same view"? No, we have all fallen but some accept the gift of Christ's sacrifice on the cross and live in his grace. Be humbled (rather be proud) by the riches he has given you...

[Acruz]

Calvin was an idiot. People in history have interpreted and modified scriptures to suit their own interests. Bambi is nothing but a naive follower. If she had been born in Afghanistan, she would have been a hard core Muslim. She did not choose to be born a Christian so she's no better than an infant who's ignorance is only what guides her.
A man's faith is shaped by his place and religion or birth and life experiences. As long as you confine your paradigm within these boundaries, you have limited exposure and insight into existence.

The writing made by Bambi on this page show the attitude of a frog in a pond, who does not have any idea about the world outside his pond (religion).
For the record I am Hobbes Christian.
Calvin and Hobbes followed their own separate Christian path after an altercation.

[Bambi]

Acruz:

Actually, I did choose. I wasn't born with this faith I have. No one should just accept. I didn't. And, neither should you. For the record, I had two dogs, named Calvin and Hobbes. But Hobbes was actually named after Thomas Hobbes.