My Scribbler's Sanctuary

My Scribbler's Sanctuary
My Other World

Saturday, 30 August 2014

Religious Accommodation= Cowardice

  This letter is intended to ALL parties at all levels, because, in all honestly, I don't really pay attention to politics so I don't know what's going on, apart from the P.M. being Stephen Harper. (and all that falderol in Toronto with Rob Ford) .

  This issue is BIGGER than even the irresponsible antics of a big city Mayor.  'Religious Accommodation' might sound like the government is catering to various groups (Christians, Jews, Catholics, etc) when, in fact, it is, as <-<------Brian Lilley calls it, Islamic Accommodation. WORSE! It's GENDER APARTHEID for the sake of ISLAMIC ACCOMMODATION.  Now, I'm relatively young (nearly 50) so I don't remember the days of boys schools and girls schools. By the time I started going to school (1969) boys and girls attended the same school. And that was pre-school and kindergarten. If parents had religious qualms about say....the child taking Sex education, (grade 5) the child simply didn't take the class. In fact, if I remember correctly, back in the day (mid-70's)  permission slips were sent home and the parents could sign or not.  This did NOT require the class be removed entirely or boys couldn't learn sex ed in the same class with the girls. It just meant that any kid, whose parent didn't sign the permission slip would not be forced to sit in on the class.
What's going on in the name of Political Correctness, on the other hand, is another matter altogether!  In the name of  'TOLERANCE' , the Canadian government,in various provinces, is tolerating Islamic INTOLERANCE of the country and culture they chose to be part of.  As per the article,  a Martial Arts class was segregated (males on one side, females on the other) because ONE Muslim man joined the group. What the instructor SHOULD have done was give this guy names and addresses for male-only martial arts classes. I'm sure they exist. Heck, I think they should! Why not?  Matter of fact, I was among the voices protesting AGAINST the twin girls who took a hockey team to court for the right to join that team.  I thought it was stupid! I've seen guys play hockey on t.v. and there is some serious roughness. Getting slammed into the boards that make up the hockey rink.  Yuh.  That's my idea of a good time. Or NOT.  The backlash against the girls' challenge had to do with the coach and team mates not wanting to deal with whines of "that guy checked me into the board too hard" or  "that guy high sticked me and now my face is ruined and I can't go to the prom!"   Well, the girls got the right to join that team, but, contrary to a lot of fears, there has been NO whining or carrying on about  the other team-mates being rough on girls.  They wanted to be on the team. They knew what they were in for, and they played like anyone else on the team and did NOT ask for special treatment or matching shoulder pads. They knew the rules, going in, and played by them. Just like any other member of the team.
   That same rule should apply in Canada. ANYONE and EVERYONE who moves to this country from....wherever else, should play by the same rules as everyone else.  And yet, the rules are being bent and outright broken because of 'religious tolerance'.  For 'religious reasons',  Muslim women, living in Canada, will NOT remove their Burkah or Hijib for passport i.d.  Okay, so how does that work?  If the picture does not show the face, how can the person be specifically identified?  How does the security at an airport know if the person behind the face covering is the same person standing in front of them? That kind of catering is not only unfair to the rest of us, it's DANGEROUS!!!  And for want of a few extra votes, or not wanting to 'OFFEND' one group of people, pandering politics could end up KILLING people!  That trumps Rob Ford's idiocies in spades! Unless, of course, one of Rob Ford's idiocies includes catering to one group's demands, to the exclusion of the rest of Ontario! 
    WOMEN'S GROUPS should be FURIOUS about this!!!!  For cryin out loud, I have friends from the States who are sure the REPUBLICANS are going to turn women's rights back!!   The entire Republican party could not do the same damage as ONE Muslim male, who decides that women should not be allowed to eat in the same part of a restaurant as a man, and the politicians acquiesce for a few more votes. Next thing you know, we don't the right to vote anymore!  Don't think it can happen?  Germans didn't think Hitler would get away with what he got away with. But  he succeeded, law by law.  He gave Germany jobs, they paid him back with their willingness to sell out their fellow Germans. 
  Today, we have people coming into this country for the same freedoms we take for granted.  Only some of those people don't like those freedoms. (Women voting. Women Driving. )  So, instead of staying where they were (where women can't vote or drive) they try reversing OUR laws, a bit at a time. Like salt erodes ice. Get well-meaning politicians letting ONE person dictate that a class has to be segregated by gender. This sets a terrifying precedent. as more demands are made (and met). When will it stop?  When Muslim men are exempt from spousal abuse laws? When women in Canada can't vote in the same poling stations with Muslim men, and then men, in general.

  What will it take to reverse this dangerous trend?  Simple. Politicians with GUTS, who will stand up for  Canadians' rights,  and that includes Canadian WOMEN! 
   To those of you who DON'T like Canada's laws and culture, as it applies to women (driving, voting, working) no one's keeping you here, okay?  Every major province in this country has an airport. You can leave Canada and its liberal laws, that treat women like equals and not like something you own, and go back to your own country, where women don't have the rights of a house pet.   But you will NOT change OUR laws to conform to YOUR views!  If that day should come, then Canada's former 'leaders' have only themselves to blame!  

   "Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."   ~~Benjamin Franklin

Saturday, 16 August 2014

Apologies for deleting story, but.....

 Hi all;

   If you're wondering what happened to the story, "A Mouse Named Pinky" I had to delete it. I had a story all mapped out complete with an idea of how I wanted it to end, and then all of it fell apart.

   See, for a writer, CHARACTER is EVERYTHING.  The personality of a character makes all the difference in how a story is shaped. In this case, the characters weren't mine, so I have to go with what I know and what I've suspected all along.  This cinched it.

   In order to write the story I was planning, I had to believe Brain had a modicum of decency and wanted to make things right with Pinky's family.  It would be on a par with believing Charles Manson would run into a burning house to save a puppy. Again, it's about CHARACTER.  Brain is a Mao/Hitler/ Saddam wanna-be. So the idea that this future  ruthless dictator would also be an abuser of a naive, kind-hearted mouse is hardly a surprise.

   As I write this, I'm listening to the movie Small Sacrifices, with Farrah Fawcett; based on the story of a woman who shot her kids to hold onto a guy. She couldn't care less about who she had if she coul'dn't have what /who she wanted.  It was all about her.  Same deal with Brain.

   Okay, so the idea of comparing a real life nutcase to a cartoon character seems a smidge 'silly'  , then again, the writers for Pinky and the Brain were stellar so you have real , honest to God personalities, This creative excellence has its good and bad side, depending on the 'people' you're dealing with. And while the foundational layer for Pinky and the Brain was inspired by Tom Minton and Eddie Fitzgerald,  I can't help but wonder who or what else contributed to the make-up of those personalities. There are complexities that aren't common in 'kids' shows. THAT is what has me as angry as I am mystified.  How many kids shows have would-be villains who model themselves after real life dictators?  Most cartoony bad guys are happy just to have what the good guys have.... a key to some secret. Magic shoes, A gold, talking flute. Whatever.  Brain, on the other hand, wants the worship of the world, and is perfectly happy to sacrifice the kindness and respect of the only real friend he will likely ever have.

   The only good news about the heartless treatment of Pinky is that,  if only in theory, eventually, Brain (and the Brain's of the world) will get back what they dish out.  Natural law dictates 'What Goes Around Comes Around'.

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Creative Writing and the Psychology of Characters

It's about the writing. It's just THAT simple! Whether it's a movie, t.v. show or novel, if the story gets you so involved in the lives of the characters that you react to the good or bad things that are happening to those people, then the writer(s) of that story were invested in the tale they were telling (real or fictional).
A good case-in-point is a sequel story by Francine Rivers. (Her Mother's Hope/  Her Daughter's Dream) .  The first of the two books tells the story of young Marta Schneider, whose father is a cold, abusive man. Her mother is a kind woman who does her best to show Marta love, to counter-act her father's abuses, but tells the girl to 'fly' out of the nest. Because if she doesn't, she will be a slave to the tailor's shop. And worse, to her father.
Marta does just that. Working wherever she could find a job, the plucky teenager slaves and squirrels her money away for something she wants. A place of her own! A boarding house where she can be her own boss. 
At this point in the story, you can't help but admire the girl. Even root for her. Marta Schneider is  tenacious and she will do what she needs to do, in order to get what she wants. That sounds good...for her. However, when her firstborn daughter does not share Marta's 'look out for number 1' credo, Marta shames the girl, even as she, paradoxically, tells a friend, in letters, how proud she is, of Hildemara Rose. 
   Even as a young child, Hildemara is treated, by her mother, like a dead weight. Something she is forced to drag around, but who doesn't matter. When the kids are given new  Christmas toys by a women's church group, after the family first moves to America, (from Switzerland) Hildemara rose is given nothing more than a rag doll from the church rummage box. Marta's view was that, since the child didn't push or shout to be heard, for what she wanted,  "...she gets what she gets." 
   As she gets older, this doesn't change. As the kids grow up and plan to go off to college,  her mother tells Marta tells her eldest daughter, point blank, that she will have to work her own way through nursing school. This, in spite of the fact that the other kids'  educations are being financed.  Her only brother is being helped by her father, who does want to help his daughter, as well, but finances are limited. And Marta puts her foot down; insisting that if Hildemara wants to clean bed pans and be nothing more than a a servant, then she wasn't about to finance the girl's desire to become a slalve.
  Somehow, Hildemara gets through nursing school, without a dime of her mother's money. But her daughter's determination does not melt her mother's iron spine or cold heart. On her first trip home from college,  Hildemara is treated like an unwelcomed guest. "Life doesn't stand still for you, Hildemara Rose."  (approx quote) .  
   What would have been THE last straw for me, is being the scene when Hildemara is kicked out of the house after the death of her father. She took time off from school to help when it's learned that her father has pancreatic cancer. She does everything she can, for him, and is given meds by the family doctor.  But after he dies, and the rest of the kids go back to their own homes and jobs, Hildemara stays back to help around the house and keep her mother company.  For those efforts, she is called a Martyr and told to get out and go back to school. That she isn't needed.
For me, that would have been it! I would have walked out, bag and baggage, gone back to my nursing school, found a way to scrimp the money together to have my name changed, and given Marta Waltert what she wanted; a life without the girl Marta Schneider-Waltert saw as nothing but a door mat.
More than characters in a book, Francine Rivers bases these fictional women on the real life women of her own family; her mother, grandmother and great grandmother. And while I've had my own issues with my mother, if she was anything like Marta Waltert, I would have walked away and my other siblings could have taken care of her. 
In the future, I hope to re-read the first book, just as a reminder, and then write what I would have done, in Hildemara's place. Literally , she is the sympathetic character her mother once was. It's interesting that, while Marta loved the mother who provided her daughter  gentle guidance and love, it's her ruthless father Marta becomes, to her own daughter.
  Another sympathetic character I'd like to explore became my first mentor and hero. He was a songwriter, unintended artist's activist and butt-kicker extraordinaire, though, except for the first, he didn't have the other two in mind at all.
I was ten when I met Winslow Leach. One dully, grey Sunday afternoon in January of 1975, my mom took my brother, sister and me to see a movie that all the kids at school had been talking about... Phantom of the Paradise. For this (then) ten year old mind, it was a wild flick, The end was a stomach-turner! Still, something sunk in. It took a while, and I ended up having a crush on ….WhatWASIthinking
  Sweet Scorsesee! What was I thinking!?
Even in the middle of that foolish infatuation, though, I found myself ....gravitating closer to the movie's hero; the hopeful young songwriter, who is pushed to drastic and murderous measures by the thieving record producer Winslow had once trusted his life's work to.
In writer's parlance, Winslow is what you would call a sympathetic character. You might think he was naive in what he did (giving his life's work away, on a promise that his work would be produced), but you might also find yourself thinking that you MIGHT be lured into the same trap, if you were in his case.
Writer/director Brain DePalma had a special empathy for Winslow, as he found himself in Winslow's shoes, early in his career. And between being shown the door by big names in high places, and hearing a beloved song being trashed by canned music, Brian fought back through Winslow (William Finley). And 40 years later, character, actor and movie are remembered by phans who appreciated what the character endured, to even the score for himself, and all nameless hopefuls.  Because of Winslow mistakes,  we're careful to cover our own creative  tracks, before the fact. "Ounce of prevention..."  and all that. Also, though, because he was willing to try and get back what was his, we also rooted for him!  He wasn't just a sympathetic character, he was a hero. Like Roy Schieder in Jaws. Only, instead of killing a shark, Winslow was hunting great white Swan.   We might not have agreed with everything he did, en route to his prey. Then again, when you're at war, rules tend to go out the window. Today, Winslow remains a focal point. I think of his mistakes when I'm working on a project, which reminds me to back up what I'm working on. His gumption and fiery determination give me courage to do things that I want and need to do, but I'm not sure that I can do...
If you're a wrestling fan, from the glory days of the late 80's into the 90's, then you know who Randy (Macho Man) Savage was. There was another guy you didn't mess with. Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to meet him, but if I had,  I might have asked if he ever heard of Phantom of the Paradise. If he had, I would have told him that he reminded me of Winslow. They both knew how to dress when the situation called for it. Both men had a poetic bent, especially when they were angry or passionate about something. And baby, when those boys took to the air, EAGLES got nervous!
      As I may have already mentioned,Winslow Leach was a 'sympathetic' character but he was also an active protagonist who embodied the trooper song, "Raise a Little Hell" and  was the inspiration for a slogan that I THINK I made up; NEVER push a Nice Guy too far. They're the ones who push back the hardest.
   Wild, the way these things work out. I've heard it said, by fans of the movie, that Phantom of the Paradise is a live-action version of a Warner Bros. cartoon. Get THAT past the Fox censors! 
But seriously folks, it may be one fan's humble opinion, but the characters that make up the new generation of Warner Bros. cartoons are every bit as enduring as those wacky characters who set the standard,back when.  Of all the indelible characters, this author's personal favorites are those two mice who were created, NOT JUST by a whim of science but by the most blessed of phrases, "WHAT IF....."    To paraphrase Max Bialystock, "Worlds are CONQUERED on such thoughts!"
Inspired by Animaniacs writer Tom Minton and story board artist Eddie Fitzgerald, Senior Producer Tom Ruegger pondered, aloud, "WHAT IF Tom Minton and Eddie Fitzgerald took over the world?"  This random ...pondering became the genesis for Pinky and the Brain, and while the pairing was mainly intended to be comedic, many fans, (this author included)  have come to sympathize with Pinky and his having to room with a mean,humorless egomaniac like Brain, whose single-minded obsession so often gets in the way of his being able to just enjoy life. I mean, the guy rarely smiles, unless he comes across a plan for world domination, which he is sooo sure will work.
That intellect, mingled with all the patience of a boiling tea kettle, make Brain either unwilling or incapable of enjoying his cage-mate's off beat sense of humor, and, more often than not, Pinky is hit on the head with a pencil, or insulted, or both.  For whatever reason, however, he doesn't strike back in anger, as most of us would.

In the episode titled SNOWBALL, Brain's former friend puts the question to Pinky, "Do you like it when Brain insults you? Puts you down?"GettingbackatBrain

To which Pinky meekly replies, "No."  For some reason, lost on me, he doesn't mind being hit on the head. In Pinky's place, I would have grabbed one end of that pencil, held it aloft, (with Brain still holding on) and informed the slap-happy mouse, "Unless you want to know what a rubber ended rectal thermometer feels like, you won't try that again!"  Or, the less-suggestive but more gruesome, "Somewhere, Mr. Brain, there is a cat's stomach with your name on it. Hit me again and you'll make that dinner reservation. Do I make myself clear?" 
It's an interesting puzzler why Snowball thinks he needs to use Pinky to get back at Brain. Considering all the times Brain has shoots down poor Pinky, you'd think he would have welcomed the offer to be freed of his intellectual inferior. So, for the sake of discussion anway, the question begs to be asked, "Why didn't Brain just leave Pinky and go in search of a cage-mate, on closer par with his I.Q. ?  Is it that he didn't believe there was another mouse or rodent, in all of Acme Labs who even approached his intelligence? Or because he got some sort of morbid kick out of verbally and physically picking on someone, who, he knew, wouldn't fight back? Orrrrrr..... is it that Brain somehow knew, that, taking his attitude with anyone else, he would have long since been left as cat food?  
There is that core to the methodically-minded mouse, where he realizes that there is more to his intellectually stunted cage-mate than he lets himself believe.  In Pinky's Plan,  Brain finds Pinky's surprise birthday party plan which had all the world's leaders meeting at Chunky Cheeses (that's Chucky Cheese in real life) and, strangely enough came to the conclusion that Pinky was trying to usurp his (Brain's) plans and take over the world on his own. I say 'strange' on two grounds. First off, Brain often insisted that Pinky didn't have the intelligence of a burned out light bulb. (Loosely translated).  So how COULD he take over the world, on his own, even if he wanted to?  Second, when did Pinky ever go behind his back on anything? In both the literal and moral sense, Pinky wouldn't know what an ulterior motive was! 
Anyway, when Brain stalks into Pinky's surprise party (dressed as Richard Simmons) and insists that the leaders have all been taken for a scam,  they take back their keys to the world, which they had given to Pinky; believing what he said about how Brain was 'selfless' and would do the best for the world.  In fact, it's Pinky who's the SELFLESS one. Brain wouldn't have jumped to the wrong conclusion if he wasn't so self-absorbed.
"I don't deserve a friend like you."  Brain concedes in humiliation, realizing that he was the cause of the plan's undoing . Can't argue with that logic!
Another case-in-point is the Halloween episode. Now pretty much everyone who loves P.a.t.B will likely site the Christmas episode as being THE holiday episode; up there with Capra (It's a Wonderful Life) or A Christmas Carol (Scrooge~ Alistair Sim), and I love it, too. But I subject that that Halloween episode TIES with the Christmas episode, based on the fact that there is a similar message in both shows. This idea is relatively foreign to Halloween shows, which are largely big spooky fun. (a la The Simpson's).  PatB's Halloween episode, on the other hand, has at least the same depth as the Christmas episode. Maybe even more.  After all, how many of us would sell our souls on behalf of someone else? Especially if that someone was always insulting,  berating and physically doing us harm?  
With Brain's latest plan gone awry (Jack-a-lantronic transmitting system); partly because of Pinky's wanting to play games in the middle of Brain's broadcast, and also because Brain crammed the peanut butter cup into Pinky's mouth, causing Pinky to fall back onto the transmitter.  The chocolate gets into the dial; causing the transmitter to seize up, making the pumpkin radio transmitting devices explode. A furious Brain blames Pinky for all of it, insisting that he was 'Feckless' and 'completely nugatory'.   And while Pinky might not have understood the meaning of those insults,  the tone of Brain's voice made it clear that he wasn't singing his praises.

Feckless; according to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English... 3rd edition, means;  Lacking determination or purpose. Feeble. Irresponsible.
 Nugatory; Having no purpose or value
Would you be inclined to sell your soul for the sort of person who'd run you down as often as Brain berated Pinky, or would you be more likely to tell Brain to GO to HELL!? Put it to you this way, I wouldn't be volunteering to damn myself for someone who'd hardly care less where I ended up!
Eventually, however, Brain contradicts his words with actions, by going to hell (conveniently located under the directory map  for the Department of Motor Vehicles) to rescue Pinky. Sadly, however,  for all his efforts, he can't summon up the courage to tell his friend that he went to this effort because Pinky was his friend and that his cared for him and missed him. Rather, Brain insisted that he came to find out where Pinky put the food pellets. HUH????  Brain, you're KING OF THE WORLD.  You could have whatever you wanted. If you couldn't find those food pellets, you could get more!  Or something else! Sweet Scorsesee! Even Snowball, in all his heartlessness, knew that Brain did care. Though a person is hard pressed to tell, most of the time. Still, Pinky was delighted; sure that his friend did need him. Why else would he go through that hell (literally). So why couldn't Brain admit as much?!  It's here where I wouldn't mind taking a pencil to Brain's head. For all his book-smarts, he's not terribly bright sometimes. At best, Brain could be diagnosed, (by Dr. Scratchnsniff) as an emotionally crippled genius.
   Another occasion where Pinky turned out to be the better mouse was an episode called 'Welcome to the Jungle', there PatB  were literally dropped into the middle of nowhere by a group of well-meaning animal rights activists. To Brain's amazement Pinky is better equipped to survive in the hostile environment where Brain is completely out of his element, away from all the gizmoes and do-hickies he thought he'd need. It is only after Pinky shows him a few tricks, (the stick is our friend) and how to construct a hat from tree bark, (among other things) that Brain is able to figure out how to adapt; which helps him when he has to go head to head with Snowball, who the tourists call 'the Wise One'. 

When all is said and done, Brain continues to Befuddle me. He does have the capacity for compassion, which is a good thing. So, to be fair, I would have to say that I don't think he would betray Pinky, even if the prize was the world. The Halloween episode proved that. In a way.   On the other hand,  there are episodes like 'Cute Little Alienhead' (Pinky, Elmyra and the Brain)  where his verbal mistreatment and threats of doing physical harm make me wonder what Brain might be capable of, should his ambitions finally over-ride what conscience he has. It's a possibility I'll be experimenting with, on both sides of the issue. (Will he? Won't he?)
In this show, Brain makes contact with an alien who chides him ; calling him Dummy Boy.  Brain, of course, doesn't care for the insult, but has no problem slagging Pinky off, when he attempts to barter, for important scientific components, with a button that he believes to be a 'Bunny Tree' seed.  Brain told Elmyra this, in order to get a must-needed respite from being mauled by the over-playful pre-schooler, and yet, is nasty to Pinky for believing it; threatening serious physical harm.  Brain also lacks empathy, when the alien ends up on the receiving-end of Elmyra's aggressive playfulness.  
Pinky: The alien doesn't look very happy.
Brain: But I am.
Sad, when you consider how often he'd suffered at Elmyra's hand.  Unintentionally, maybe, but he still suffered. And it's this side of the 'intelligent' mouse I fear. Intellect minus compassion = ruthless dictator. 
As I mentioned before, when characters are created with honest human dimensions, in terms of personality make-up, it begs a fan fiction writer to delve into all the aspects of those personalities, for better and worse!   I plan to explore at least one of those possibilities.  I mean, really! How many times do you have to be told that you're not needed before you just leave that person to go it alone? I'd be told the most, twice. After the third time, bye! 
PinkyandPharnewtonPinky's better than I am, in that regard. He's sweet, kind and compassionate, and, for the most part, doesn't have an aggressive bone in his body. You have to push him on particular issues to get the submissive mouse to put his foot down. One case in point was when Brain wanted to use his new job, as the spokes-mouse for Brainy Cigarettes, to gain control of the world.  Pinky called him a Hippopotamus (translation: Hypocrite). Instead of realizing that he was being told off, Brain corrects Pinky's grammar. 
Another situation arose when Brain taught Pinky about the constitution in order to help his election hopes.  Pinky wins the presidency and then Brain tries to get him to do something that ran contrary to what he'd spent all that time learning, and Pinky refuses.  Brain's furious. But an opposing party discovers that Brain had tried to take over the world, by various means and he's is tried in a senate hearing.  Pinky comes to Brain's rescue by insisting that he was responsible. All he would have had to do was grant him a pardon. Then again, that might have raised questions about his own part in the fiasco, so Pinky throws himself on the mercy of the senate committee and is summarily impeached. 
While this action undoes their plans, over all, it also prevents Brain from possibly doing serious jail time for trying to over-throw a democracy. If said crimes were to be brought to the attention of the U.N. that mouse's goose would be cooked.
In all seriousness, though,  I couldn't live with someone like Brain. I've known guys like Brain. Co-workers. Relatives. I've even come across a few women like him. No fun in any case. These people were either overly critical of others, or they were right all the time, or good luck getting a word in, edgeways, or All of the Above.
   Only one was both physically and emotionally abusive and I wouldn't live with someone like that again for all the money in the world. If I were so unfortunate and/or foolish as to end up with another one, I'd leave as soon as it was possible. If I couldn't do that, I'd either commit murder or suicide. It's a physical and an emotional and mental drain to live every day, being told that you're an idiot as you’re being 'cuffed about'.  It's little wonder that fans (most female fans anyway) are Pinky-friendly and want to cuddle and protect him and even rescue him.

At this point, I'm sure there are many of you thinking that I should have myself committed to the “Please, Please, PLEEESE GET A LIFE Foundation”! I'm wondering that, myself.  On the other hand, the Please, Please PLEEESE GET A LIFE Foundation is for those 'happily engrossed in INCONSEQUENTIAL cartoon trivia,' such as the number of the Cartoonist's union or Beverly Hills postal code and numbers used by various characters. Dealing with ISSUES like bullying and abuse, however, are not trivial.
But this is silly!  How can you call this abuse?  Simple; If it was happening to me, I'd say I was being abused. Sadly, there are those who've known nothing but abuse and though they don't like what's happening to them, they don't know that there is anything better than what they have, or even if they do want a better life, they're afraid of leaving their abuser. OR, perhaps, like Brain, they are remorseful of their actions and apologize.  As the saying goes, though, that (apology) and maybe five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Remorse is worth nothing unless the the destructive behavior ends. If it doesn't end, then the Sorry is a 'sorry' excuse to abuse on another day. Especially if the poor bullied soul continues to let it happen.  And no amount of tears or apologies will fix broken bones.
If you don't want to believe an animated series, then watch a movie;  'What's Love Got to Do with It?'  Tina Turner was a grown woman who put up with a brute a lot worse than Brain.  And, assuming the movie is reliable,  Ike was occasionally remorseful for his abuses and bought her 'sorry' gifts.  But the  abuse continued them because Tina didn't leave.  She accepted the apologies until she could no longer take the escalating abuse. In a past mention, Hildemara Waltert  (Her Mother's Hope) was a victim of her mother's emotional coldness.  No matter what good the girl tries to do, it's seen as weakness and she's percieved as a weakling. Still, she returns. So, Pinky's in good company, in a manner of speaking.
As I thought out ideas for this post....usually when I was at work, and couldn't do any casual scribbling, it dawned on me that PINKY was the more EMOTIONALLY STABLE of the two characters. See, when Pinky used the word friend, (when he called himself Brain's friend) he knew what he was talking about. He was never nasty or insulting. Okay, there was the odd jibe about the big headed character pacing in their page or something about Brain's not being able to apply for Rythmic Gymnastics because of the height requirement. (Halloween episode) More often than not, however,  Pinky was the one doing nice things for a cage-mate who seldom repaid the kindness.  Yes, Brain appreciated it, and would MAKE UP FOR his nasty behavior. Still, would it kill him to be nice, just knowing that he has a friend who would go out of his way (and then some) for him?  Is the quest for world domination so time-consuming that he can't take the opportunity to smile, just for the fun of it?  As the saying goes, "Don't knock it til you tried it."
I've come to the conclusion that Brain did what he did because he knew he could get away with it.  He assumed that Pinky would always be there, which, to Brain, was a license to mistreat the mouse he occasionally referred to as a 'friend'.  So, while I'm here, I might as well let you all in on a couple of ponderings of mine;
  •    First off,  if Brain thinks he can bully a so-called 'friend'  and get away with it,  what would he be like with unfettered power at his command?  I mean, if he can't treat a friend with any real respect, what hope does a stranger or enemy have? 
  • For all the times he's verbally slammed the door on Pinky, sending him away, has Brain ever considered the possibility that he might open that door, only to find that Pinky is no longer on the other side?  I, for one, would have LOVED for the writers to examine that theory.  However, since they didn't get around to it,  this author would like to take it upon herself, and find out what might happen when a good mouse is pushed, one step too far.

Saturday, 18 May 2013

Contesting Calvinism

{Sounding an alarm against a DIABOLICAL DEFAMATION of the Character of GOD!}


       ~Author’s Note~

   To begin with,  I’m going to go on record in saying that I have NO seminary or ‘divinity school’ training.  I’ve been a Christian since I was 17 and, up til fairly recently, knew nothing about what ‘Calvinism’ was. I might have vaguely heard the name Calvin (John)  mentioned as one of the reformers of the Church during what has come to be called ‘The Reformation’. 
  My eyes were opened (WIDE, as in shock!)  when, quite by accident, I stumbled upon a doctrine that, to my uneducated mind~per theological things~ just seemed WRONG.  But the more I asked about it, the more confused, frustrated and deeply ANGRY I got!  With God, more than anyone else.  I mean, if this business about an ‘elect’ was true, and God (for the sake of discussion) chose who the ‘elect’ would be without even those chosen having any say in the matter, and the rest of humanity was predestined, by God, to eternal torment, then I wanted NO PART of him!  I was a Christian, but what about my family, what if God did not ‘choose’ them?  What made me any more worthy of salvation than they were?  Something did NOT feel right about the whole thing. And yet,  either God (the REAL GOD….of the BIBLE) wouldn’t let me go, or I couldn’t let this issue go…I kept searching.  Some of the sources, who agreed with the doctrine of  ‘Limited Atonement’  would casually state that God chose His elect and who were we to argue?  We should be thankful he chose any of us! That should have made me feel good, except it didn’t.  These people were so… …casual, when I asked, “What about your families or your best friend or your co-workers? Doesn’t it bother you that God will arbitrarily send these people to hell without a second thought?”   If I got an answer at all, it centered around God’s SOVEREIGNTY.  Oh, how they LOVED throwing THAT word around! But it still struck me as COLD. Utterly indifferent!
   FINALLY! Answers!  I’m sure the Lord knew how completely upset and stressed I was and how I wanted to chuck Christianity altogether, if this LIMITED ATONEMENT garbage turned out to be true!  I’m sure He’s had to deal with MANY people in that same boat.  I started finding people on Youtube, who would counter this doctrine, and the entire ‘Calvinist’ set up.  And they were addressing the very points I was troubled about. Thank GOD! I wasn’t going crazy!   Others felt the same way!   And I was directed to sources that could counter this heartless religion, where the God of the Bible (supposedly) was painted as a character without a heart for His own creation. That wasn’t the GOD I was told about in church, or I wouldn’t have continued going to church!  What had I stumbled into?


  Inside of a day of finding this one book, I made one discovery about the religion of ‘Calvinism’ that saved me from rushing to the other side. (Atheism).  This religious system was, as much as any other false religion, was HATCHED IN HELL!  If Stephen King tried, he could NOT create a horror story to compare with the cold bloodedness of Calvinism!  Not only is truth STRANGER than fiction, in this case, it’s FAR SCARIER! An eternal nightmare!
   See, unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism, Calvinism uses, or, should I say MISuses the Bible (EXCLUSIVELY) to agree with their doctrine, instead of holding their doctrine up to the litmus test of scripture. Any and all cults do the same. Now the Watchtower and Mormonism, and all the other Isms we’re familiar with, as well, are notorious scripture twisters, themselves, but they also have their own books that conform to their doctrine.  To my knowledge, the Bible is the only ‘book’ the Calvinist uses, (if I’m wrong, and there are other books, I’m open to correction).   WORSE is the way the most beloved scriptures are altered to suit the views of this ….aberrant  sect. And that’s a POLITENESS! 
   In my research, I’ve collected nearly an entire book of notes, all centered around what Calvinists call T.U.L.I.P.  The ‘heart’ (?)  of the Calvinist ‘gospel’.   In posting each of the ‘five points of Calvinism’ ,  I will do my best to be plain in what those letters stand for, so, by the time you get to the end of it, you’ll know what you might have let yourself get involved with .  It’s a subtle deception, this T.U.L.I.P…one pastor put it, “LOVELY flower but LOUSY theology!”  Problem is, once it’s in your head, it’s like you find yourself singing a song you don’t even like.  No matter how bad you want to shut it off, it keeps playing itself over and over in your head.  Been there. I know.  Worse yet,  because this false system does use the Bible, it is seen as CHRISTIAN, just because its namesake was one of the supposed reformers.  In this case, however, I have to wonder if the ‘cure’ wasn’t worse than the disease!
   That said, let’s get on with it!

   It’s a TRAP! He’s an IMPOSTER!!!

      2 Corinthians 11:4  (Another Jesus, Another ‘spirit’, another ‘gospel’)  //  2 Cor 11:14 (Satan as ‘angel of light’)  See also:  Acts 20:29, 2 Thess 2:3,  2 Tim 4:1.
       All things considered, what scenario could be more likely? Especially if you’re familiar with Calvin’s  horrific abuses of those who attempted to disagree with him. These days, Calvinist adherents, on less-volatile terms with non-Calvinists, will simply say, “You don’t get Calvinism!”  On that, we’re in agreement, but little else besides.
   Full, five-point Calvinists equate T.U.L.I.P with historic Christianity, but if you know about the points behind the acronym, compared to the God of the Bible, then you have to know something is NOT right!  Like I said earlier, I’ve never been to seminary. I don’t know anything about the Bible languages, apart from the fact that they exist(ed) Greek. Hebrew. Aramaic. I can, however, read a text like John 3:16, 17, and tell you what it means.  For God so loved the WORLD…  God did not send His Son into the WORLD to condemn the WORLD, but that the WORLD through Him, might be saved .”   In this case, exactly what it says.  Same with 2 Peter 3:9  “….He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”  That’s pretty straight forward. It is God’s desire that all should come to repentance. (A condition of salvation).  We have to repent. Come to Christ; admitting we’re sinners.  Instead, Calvin’s disciples insist, today, that Christ died for the ‘elect’ only.  That He loves a specific group and no one else.  That Christ came to save them, but no one else!  This is NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE!!!!  You’ll see that (hopefully) by the time I’m finished.
   “Christ came into the world to save SINNERS, of whom I am chief.”  1 Tim 1:15
    Who has sinned?  According to Romans 3:23, ALL have sinned.   Now,  if Jesus came to save sinners, and ALL have sinned, then NO ONE is left out of God’s plan of salvation. Many, tragically, LEAVE THEMSELVES out by refusing Christ’s gift, but that is NOT GOD’S doing.  1 John 2:2 talks about Christ’s satisfying God’s justice for the sins of the WORLD.  This statement echoes the sentiments of John the Baptist, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the WORLD.”
   Now, before any Calvinist proponents insist, “HA! This chick is NUTS. This world is a MESS! How can Christ have taken away the world’s sins if we’re in the mess we’re in?”   Simple.  The offer is on the table but has not been accepted, by most of the world.  There are soap factories in the world, too, but that doesn’t mean that everyone is clean.  The solution has to be APPLIED.  This is a personal choice. Counter that with what I am FINALLY going to get to…. the five points of Calvinism, which denies just about every point I’ve just made.

    T.U.L.I.P;   FRAGRANT Flower. DEADLY Doctrine!

       Not being a horticulturalist, I know precious little about how to raise plants. I recall a potted Evergreen that I took home and tried to plant in the back yard. Whatever happened, the poor thing died. Bummer. It would have been cool to have a tree in the back yard.  Evergreens are supposed to be a sturdy tree, just not in my hands.  Likewise, I know even less about Tulips, except that I believe they are native to Holland.  I recently saw some at the store; bought by people, who wanted to get their moms something for mother’s day. A beautiful flower.  The central doctrine, undergirding  modern-day Calvinism, is anything BUT beautiful!  Heretical,  DIABOLICAL DECEPTION. Misleading would be THE understatement of the last millenia!

  T= TOTAL DEPRAVITY.   In Calvinism, ‘DEPRAVITY’ equals ‘INABILITY’.  Because humanity, for the most part, doesn’t want or seek after God, Calvinism concludes that we are incapable of seeking after God on our own. And yet, this god of Calvinism will hold humanity responsible for the choice he did not allow us to make.   
   The god of Calvinism chooses to regenerate people who will be part of his ‘elect’.   Yes, the Bible does mention the word ELECT, but NOT the way Calvinists use it.  Case in point, JESUS (Messiah~Isaiah 42:1) was mentioned with use of that word. Does that mean that Jesus was chosen for salvation?  How?  He’s the cause of salvation!  So ‘election’ has to have a different meaning than what Calvinism gives us.
    The problem with the Calvinist’s god  and his ‘election’ of those he will save is that there is NO CHOICE on the part of the person being chosen. Calvin’s god overcomes any resistance on the part of his electee by what is called ‘Irresistible Grace’.   (the ‘I’ in Tulip) .  That said, the question must be asked, (and I’ll ask it any number of times in the course of this essay, I’m sure! ) ‘If God (for the sake of making the case, let’s assume the god of Calvinism and the God of the Bible are the same ‘person’)  is calling all the shots, and humanity has no say in their own eternal destiny,  then WHY didn’t God just save everyone, right off the top?  Why did the fall even have to happen?   One book I finally bought answered that question;  and to my surprise, we came to the same conclusion! Imagine MY shock!  Surprised smile  A few years earlier, I wrote an essay called, “Calvinism in the Garden; Who is the author of the fall?” 
   Two issues paramount in this entire matter;  humanity’s moral responsibility and God’s motive for sending Christ into the world.  Answer to question number 2…. LOVE.  And REAL love in contingent on having a choice to love.  If God does not give humanity a choice and simply chooses a group to serve and love him, how is that love?  A  man can approach me and say, “I’ll give you ten million dollars if you’ll marry me.”   Or put a gun to my head and say, “If you don’t marry me, I’ll blow your brains out!” One option is obviously more appealing than the other, and even offers a bit more in the way of choice, but even if I did marry the guy, all the money in the world can’t make me love someone I hardly know.  On the other hand, while having my brains splattered all over the wall might not sound very appealing, neither does being married to a guy who has to use threats of violence to get people to do anything. If I leave, I’m dead. If I stay, I’m miserable enough to wish I was dead. 
   The god of Calvinism gives us no choice. Those who are his ‘elect’ are chosen, by some mysterious act of regeneration which makes them willing to serve.  Kinda like being hypnotized without even realizing they’ve been hypnotized.  On the flip side, those who are NOT the elect can hear sermons and gospel messages til the cows come home and  (according to Calvinism) not be able to  respond to the message because Calvin’s god doesn’t want them to be able to respond.  Either way, individual choice is a non-issue. 
   Look at it like this…. you’re drowning, and someone extends a life preserver.  But they hold the preserver ten feet out of your reach and then shouts at you for not grabbing onto it.  Then they take the preserver back and say, “Your loss! I tried!”  Should you be allowed to drown because someone kept rescue out of your reach?
  Another illustration, which might help clear things up a bit better, is the idea of the INVITE. 
     According to Calvinist doctrine, man is in control if we are given the choice of accepting Christ’s offer of salvation, but that doesn’t work.  I don’t know someone is having a pizza party for their birthday unless I’m invited to that party!  The person doesn’t TELL me to come. I’m not directed to said party at gun-point.  On the other hand, I can’t go to a party I don’t even know is going on, never mind where it’s going on.  GOD issues the INVITE. Humanity can choose to say yes or no. But unless we have an offer to respond to, one way or the other, how can we respond at all? The OFFER of SALVATION was made by GOD. Humanity can respond, And the Bible says that we can ALL accept the offer God extends. Matter of fact, it is HIS desire.  (1 Tim 2:4, 6)  Sadly, HE knows that too many won’t accept. This is NOT God’s wish. It’s just what He knows.  And to KNOW something is going to happen and to MAKE it happen are two very different things!  THIS is one of the points that separate Calvinism from Biblical Christianity.  According to the Bible, God told Adam and Eve NOT to eat of the tree that was in the middle of the garden; knowing the full ramifications of what would happen if they disobeyed.  The god of Calvinism, who is NOT truly omniscient, initiated the fall so he would know what would happen. In other words, God (as Calvinist doctrine goes) tells Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, but then he makes them eat from that tree because the only way he would know what they were going to do is if he makes them do it.  But wait!  Why would God tell someone to do or NOT do something if he was going to make them do it because that’s the only way he could know that’s what they would do?   Wouldn’t that make our actions God’s actions?  If that’s the case, how can ANYONE go to hell if our actions aren’t really ours?  Can you say ‘SET UP’ ???


U= Unconditional Election  “The UNCHANGEABLE PURPOSE of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath , out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His  own will, chosen from the whole human race,…. a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ……”  

    In plain English, like what was stated in the T of T.u.l.i.p,  the decision of who will be 'saved’ is God’s alone,   If you’re one of the ‘elect’, congrats!  If not, tough tacos, Pedro!  You’re burnt toast.

  This is why I distinguish the GOD of the Bible from the small ‘g’ god of Calvinism.  The god of John Calvin is UTTERLY APATHETIC to those he casually condemns to eternal torment without their having a choice in their eternal destiny. Romans 6:23 says the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.  According to Irresistable grace, those who are the ‘elect’ (of Calvinism)  have no knowledge or say in the matter. It was imposed on them. As if to say, “You’ll take this gift and like it!”  I’ve heard it said that the ability to respond to the Gospel is contingent on whether or not you have been ‘regenerated’ so that you can say yes.  It amounts to being ‘born again’ before you’re ‘born again’.  Again, though, the god of calvinism has a limited capacity for love and compassion. Much like that of fallen humanity. Hmmm?  Coincidence?  Hardly.
    Tragically, incredibly, this horrific view is shared by Calvin’s adherents, today!   And it dawns on me that these deceived souls may not be following Christ so much as  *men’s  erroneous interpretations of Who THEY believe Jesus to be, and what the Bible says about Him.  (*Augustine, who passed his teachings to Calvin) .
   Somehow, though, this makes it worse !  Probably because Calvin has been considered one of the heroes of the reformation.  One question posed by my purchased book, suggested that Calvin leaned FAR MORE on Augustine’s views than what the Bible taught.   If that be the case, and the doctrines framed by Calvin were formulated, in no small part by a thorough-going Roman Catholic, then where did these doctrines come from, if not the Bible? 
    When you consider the nonchalance, with which the god of calvinism can damn millions, by his cold-blooded version of ‘Tag, you’re it"’ or ‘Eeeny Meeny Miney Moe’  then you don’t  have to be a Bible scholar, or even an expert in geography, to determine where such doctrines were conceived!

   L= LIMITED ATONEMENTConnected with the previous two points of of Calvinism (and the most divisive, even amongst Calvinists) ,  this HORRENDOUS HERESY sets the deceit in granite, as hard as the hearts of those who agree with it!

I said that this was a divisive doctrine, and that not all Calvinists hold to it. Ironically, it would almost be better if they did. At least it would do away with the tangle of contradictions the ‘moderate Calvinists’ ensnare themselves in, trying to explain it away. 
   A BIG word with Calvinists is ‘SOVEREIGNTY’ .  The ‘SOVEREGNTY’ of GOD is huge with these people, and cannot imagine God being able to keep full control if humanity is allowed the right to choose whether or not they will accept Christ’s gift of Salvation.  THIS is yet another reason why the Calvinist does NOT know the GOD of the BIBLE. The god of Calvinism is NOT truly Omniscient. He doesn’t KNOW everything unless He creates it or decides it.  That is where human frailty comes in.
   We cannot see perfectly into the future. God can. Mind you, to GOD, it is all displayed in what C.S. Lewis’  Screwtape (Screwtape Letters) acknowledged to be God’s ‘UNBOUNDED NOW’. God is outside time. So what we call the future, uncertainties and all, is right in front of God. He didn’t have to CREATE an event to know it would take place, He just knows.  God does rule in the affairs of men (Daniel 4:32) but He doesn’t contravene our God-given choice. He will either confirm that choice or even frustrate human attempts at self-imposed control. (Just as with King Nebuchadnezzar)  who thought he was all that and then some. God brought him down to earth, nearly literally, until he got the point.  It’s hard to continue being proud when you’re eating grass and sleeping in a barn.  Still, the king had a choice. He COULD have continued in his pride, only to be kept in the same condition for a longer time.   But King Nebuchadnezzar wisely chose to go back to his life as a king, but knowing who the TRUE monarch was.  Smart man. Took a few lessons to figure it out, but he got the point, at last.
   Still in all,  this talk about God’s ‘SOVEREIGNTY’ , there is precious little room, in Calvinist doctrine, for God’s LOVE and COMPASSION.  Unless, of course, it’s for the Calvinist ‘elect’ .  Radio preacher  John McArthur, however, (referring to himself as a ‘moderate’ Calvinist) believes that Christ does love everyone, but to different degrees.  To the non-elect, God might bestow earthly blessings, like a good job, a nice house, All the world might offer.  To those the Calvinist god cavalierly predestined to eternal torment,  this scenario  is on a par to feeding someone the best meal they ever had before marching them to a wall, to be executed by firing squad or fed to a great white shark!   In the words of Tina Turner’s Bio-Flic, ‘What’s LOVE got to do with It?!”


Humanity cannot hear or respond to the Gospel unless the Calvinist god first ‘regenerates’ them,  and Calvin has applied this only to his god’s ‘elect’.  There is no such thing as FREE WILL  in Calvinism. Without the Calvinist god deciding that he wants us, we literally don’t have a hope in hell! This point has been made three times already, as it is reiterated time and time again in upholding  the Calvinist position.
   According to modern-day preachers of this ‘gospel’ (?)  like John Piper, it is to his god’s “good will and glory” to predestine multitudes to eternal judgement before they were even born! I’ve also read that even children, (babies!)  who were not chosen as the ‘elect’ by the despotic deity of Calvinism could wind up in hell!  If you can believe this, Mr. Piper has NO , NOT ONE IOTA of difficulty with this doctrine (even as he assumes it to be true).  Personally, I’d sooner cozy up to the iceberg that sunk the Titanic than try to communicate with an ardent, five point Calvinist, who truly believes that these hellish heresies are found in the Bible! 
    I have a difficult time reconciling ‘Love’ of any kind with the actions that would say quite the opposite. It is the ‘love’ of the god of Calvinism that millions are prevented, by his  ‘SOVEREIGN WILL’ ,  from being able to understand or respond to the Good News that leads to salvation, and yet judged, by the same god, for NOT responding to the same gospel he would not allow us to respond, favorably’, to!  Double-think of this magnitude would give George Orwell a  pounding headache.  
   Now…taking Calvinism back to the Garden of Eden; since humanity has no free will, then the Fall of Humanity was not only KNOWN by God but DECREED by him. (Remember, the god of Calvinism cannot foresee things he didn’t already create.  CALVINISTS ADMIT THIS! ).    He could have kept Adam and Eve away from that tree or he could have had Eve shout for help until God zapped the snake. Thus removes temptation and all’s well.
   So why didn’t he?  If God is TOTALLY in control;  puppeteering humanity around like some cosmic Jim Henson, why didn’t he just prevent the fall?  It would have been easy enough.  The Bible says, “Is there anything too hard for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14).  And he could save all humanity, TODAY, by  over-riding everyone’s resistance and having them regenerated so they can hear and respond.  So why doesn’t he?  If Calvin’s god is holding all the cards, and pulling our strings, then why doesn’t he just save everyone?  (2 Peter 3:9) .
   Could it be that this god isn’t about love?  That the god of Calvinism is no more than a cold-hearted control freak who sentences millions to their doom just because he can?!  If that’s all he’s about then Satan can just put his feet up and relax. Calvin’s god is doing better, damning souls, than the two thirds of the fallen angels that sided with Lucifer.  With a deity like this, who needs demons?
    Tragically, people blinded by this damnable heresy~ 2 Peter 2:1  (CALVINISM)  are not seeing the God of the Bible.  The God of the Bible could have zapped Eve as soon as she touched the forbidden fruit.  But do you just zap someone you love just because they disagree with or disobey you? 
   In the best of homes, with mom and dad doing everything as right as possible, (no boozing or drugs in the home. There’s love and guidance aplenty. )  And yet, the child gets involved with the wrong crowd and there’s all sorts of trouble.  Do the parents just write the prodigal child off  or do they keep trying to steer the erring child back into the right direction again, as well as pray the child will come to his or her senses?  In the case of the God of the Bible, to A&E and their descendants, God made every effort possible to bring His kids back to the right road before resorting to the most drastic measures. On the other hand, the god of Calvinism already decided that A&E would fall. He purposed it.  The god of Calvinism is the author of the fall, and all that came after. And yet, he holds humanity morally responsible for a choice we had no ability to make!  In legal terms, that would be known as a Frame Up!  (Read Luke Ch. 15). Prodigal son came to his senses and CHOSE to go home. If he had no choice in the matter, the same god who decided he should go home was the same god who also  told him to spend his inheritance on, as one country song once put it, “Cigarettes and whiskey and wild, Wild Women!”
   {  Dear Calvinist,  Envision yourself in court. You’re on trial for mass murder. You KNOW you did NOT commit this crime, for which you will pay with your LIFE if found guilty.  Moreover, you know who DID commit the crime, for which you’re standing trial!  And out he walks! The door of the Judge’s chambers opens and the man who set you up, on the crime of mass murder, is stepping up to the judge’s bench!  Think that’s fair?  NOT MUCH! }
    I mentioned, a few paragraphs back, something along the lines of the god of Calvinism Puppeteering us around “like some cosmic Jim Henson”. My SINCEREST APOLOGIES to JIM HENSON’S family and to the man, himself.  See, even as a flawed person, Mr. Henson wouldn’t do, in a billion years, what the god of calvinism has decided will-less humanity should do!  Think about it!  Under the doctrine of Calvinism, even HITLER would have to be defended, on the grounds that GOD (for the sake of making the point)  was the one pulling his strings!  Atheist groups could have themselves a high old time, if that point could be proven! 
    But then, what about people like the Ten Boom’s, the Schindler’s and others, great and small, who made whatever effort they could, to save people who were being hunted down, by the Nazis, who were also acting under the will of the Calvinist god.  NOW,  If the god of Calvinism was moving Hitler to do what he did, then WHO was moving those who were trying to save people from what the god of Calvinism was making Hitler do? “A house divided against itself…” and all that.  If there is no such thing as free will,  we have ‘god’ in a complete conflict-of-interest with himself! Holy Schizophrenia, Batman!  
    If any Calvinist can offer a viable explanation as to how God can hold will-less humanity responsible for what he has them do, I look forward to reading it.  NOTE: Your explanation cannot involve use of the word MYSTERY.  Simply consider how YOU would feel; being put on trial for a crime you did NOT commit!
  And now, for the last petal on this poison plant….

  P= Perseverance of the Saints.

    Aha! Surprised smile   I mentioned Schizophrenia a minute back. If THIS doesn’t prove the illogical, (if not utterly UNBIBLICAL)  nature of Calvinism, I’ll EAT a Tulip!
    For four letters of the acronym,  GOD’S (Calvinist god)  ‘Sovereignty’  is exclusive.  Human will and choice is not even considered.  If this god choses to regenerate us, fine. Otherwise, he had decided that the non-elect will spend eternity in hell, without their having any ability to choose where they want to spend eternity.  
    I reiterate this to contrast it with the last letter of T.U.L.I.P   Perseverance  of the Saints. THIS is where it comes down to what WE have to do.   PROBLEM….. How do we do or decide to do anything when humanity has no will????  Or is this remedied when Calvin’s god regenerates his elect?
   No matter, if our salvation is entirely contingent on our behavior, and conduct, I can tell you, from personal experience, I’m toast!  I’m a believer in Christ. I’m a born again Christian. I’m also a child of the 70’s, and have membership on a facebook page, involving a movie I grew up with, and love writing fan fiction. I’ve also had to ask forgiveness for swears, uttered in impatience.  I’m in serious trouble if my salvation hinges on MY record, instead of Christ’s righteousness being transferred to my account.  
   More to the point, however, is the CONTRADICTION between this Point in Calvinism and point number 2….. UNconditional Election.  How can someone be ELECT, based on God’s choice and then, a few letters later, be unelected, based on the record of performance.  How does UNconditional become Conditional?  I assumed Unconditional Election meant whoever the god of Calvinism chose was IN.  Doesn’t God know what your record of performance will be?  Doesn’t he DECIDE your track record?  How is your salvation suddenly your doing if you have no will to decide what you’re going to do?  Confused smile 
    Thus, it’s the same with all other world religious systems.  Devout, well-meaning Roman Catholics might wonder, towards the end of their lives, if enough Rosaries were said.   A sincere Jehovah’s Witness might begin to ponder, even with good standing in their Kingdom Hall,  if they’ve put in enough field service.  A Muslim could worry about the attendance at the Mosque, for the five prayers a day.  NONE of these poor souls have assurance, that when they die, they will go to heaven or Paradise, or end up in hell or eternal non-existence. That a Calvinist has to wait til the end of their lives to know if their track record is acceptable to their god is as much prove as we need that these deceived souls are NOT familiar with the GOD of the Bible.  The God who loves them and ALL humanity.  The God of the Bible is not into the ‘HELL PACKAGE’;  choosing only so many for salvation and chucking the rest, ever so casually into eternal fire.  Isaiah 55:1 ---->  .   Revelation 22:17.18,  
    In one chapter of this book I’ve been reading, it’s been said that there is NO assurance of salvation in this man-made system. And if that doesn’t prove the point, conclusively, I don’t know what will!  (John 5:24,  1 John 5:11-13,)    No other man-made religious system provides assurance for salvation, either. In some cases, it’s a sin to make such a presumption despite what the Bible teaches on the matter. We CAN KNOW.  The question is, though, are you depending on doctrines of John Calvin, or the sacrifice of Christ for your assurance.  One will give you full assurance (Hebrews 7:25) and the other cannot and Will NOT. 
    Putting this matter of ‘limited atonement’ into perspective, for those of you who are parents;  You smell smoke in your home late one night.  Fire.  Without thinking about your own safety, you rush to the room of your two kids.  Question; do you grab BOTH kids or  just the one?  Any good parent would grab both and race from the burning building. The god of Calvinism, on the other hand,  would grab one child  OR the other; leaving the lone child to die in the house fire. How is humanity more compassionate than their creator?  Simple; the god of Calvinism is NOT humanity’s creator. He’s a man-made despot;  born from Satanic inspiration, and nothing more elegant than that.
    At the end of all of this, we need to get back to THE prime motivator for Christ’s coming into the world and going to the Cross. LOVE.  JOHN 3:16, 17.   WHOSOEVER WILL….  I’m a WHOSOEVER. How about you?  Are you 100% sure that YOU are one of the ELECT?  If not, maybe you need to find out.   I take that back. There is No MAYBE about it; you DO need to find out. Your eternal destiny, as well as your present peace of mind, depend on it!
    According to 1 Cor 14:33, God is NOT the author of CONFUSION. Calvinism,  on the other hand, is REPLETE with it!  Confusion. Uncertainty and a complete lack of genuine love or basic human compassion on the part of their hyper-controlling god,  Even fallen humanity (by the will of the Calvinist god, for the sake of discussion)  has a modicum of basic decency towards other people.   Not everyone, but most people we know have a measure of compassion towards other people.  Unless you keep company with Neo-Nazis or terrorists.  
    In closing, I’d like to leave you with a thought and then my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE  quote by King James, (Yes, THE King James), who commented on the Calvinist gathering “Synod of Dort” and the doctrine that came out of it.
    I’ve given the first point of Calvinism’s T.U.L.I.P some thought.  TOTAL DEPRAVITY meaning INABILITY.  If you know someone who used to drink and doesn’t anymore. Or used to do drugs and doesn’t anymore, or used to gamble and doesn’t anymore, then you have just disproven the first point of Calvinism. Without the ability to choose to change a situation, the drunk would always stay drunk. The drug addict would remain a drug addict. The gambler would keep gambling.  And yet, I know both a former drinker and a former drug addict.  Neither, sadly, are Christians, but they both decided that they wanted OUT of a self-destructive lifestyle and so they found a way to get out.  If that is possible, then why can’t man, who has been said to be ‘incurably religious’, seek after God?  In the Old Testament, (which goes back a significant amount of time PRE-Calvinism) there are any number of verses that talk about seeking the Lord. One of my favorites is Jer. 29:13  “You will seek Me and FIND Me when you seek after Me with all your heart.”   This proves it can be done. 
     On the contrary, if there is NO WILL, and humanity , one day, stands  before the great white throne judgement, to be condemned for sins that the god of Calvinism has decreed we would do, then that will be the BIGGEST INJUSTICE of time and eternity!  Such a god can NOT claim the title , Righteous Judge
    I believe I already mentioned it before, but it bears reiteration;  Calvinism’s resurgence in these days;  with its lack of love or assurance of salvation is prime evidence of the days we’re in!  2 Cor 11:4 ,14 ; 2 Thess 2:3 ;  2 Tim 4:1
    Referring to the fourth point of Calvinism, (Irresistible Grace) that God is the cause of BOTH sin and salvation,   King James had THIS to say;
    “This doctrine is so horrible that I am persuaded , if there were a council of unclean spirits assembled in hell, and their prince, (the devil) were to ask their opinion about the most likely means of stirring up hatred of men against God (their maker), NOTHING could be invented by them that would be more efficacious for this purpose, or that could put a greater affront upon God’s love for mankind, than the infamous decree of the late Synod of Dort…”
    If I could reply, I would say, “Your majesty, King James,  I have absolutely NO doubt, in my mind that the religion of Calvinism originated from that very locale!”  
     One Last Word……
   Calvinism OR Christ: There is NO way to reconcile the God of the Bible to the god of Calvinism. One gives humanity the ability to choose to accept or refuse the gift of Salvation He offers. (Joshua 24:15) (Romans 6:23)  How can anyone CHOOSE anything if free will does not exist?  To force something on someone…(as in IRRESISTIBLE GRACE) is hardly gracious. Even if it’s something a person would want under more pleasant circumstances. The god of Calvinism is a hard-hearted control freak, who thinks that it’s wonderful that he pick a tolken group of people to make himself LOOK like he has an ounce of compassion.  And, sadly, he’s fooled enough people, to this day.
    I’m going to assume that you have enough compassion to do what would be right for any albeit FALLEN human to do. If you see a man robbing another, would you not make a noise to distract the robber and let the other man escape?  Or you saw a man abusing a woman in the street as you’re on your way home from work, would you not stop and help the woman?  If you’re in a boat, and you see two people in the water. One is holding onto his friend for dear life, but neither of them has much time left if they aren’t plucked out of that chilly water. Do you grab one or both and let them in your boat?  If you say BOTH, then you are better than the god of Calvinism.
    The God of the BIBLE loved His creation enough to die for ALL.  So why aren’t all saved? NOT because God doesn’t want all to be saved, but because too many don’t want that salvation. They want to do what THEY wish with No ‘religion’ to mess with their plans and good time.  WHOSOEVER WILL may drink of the water of life freely (Rev 22:17)  How can John speak of a will that doesn’t exist?  EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON at an evangelical crusade IS the elect, just because they chose to be there. Even cutting the number in half, one half being believers already, and the other half being friends and family, who the first half WANT to see come to Christ.  EVERY SINGLE  person, in that unsaved group can choose to respond to the evangelist’s message.  A ‘spiritually dead’ person still has a mind, Will and intellect. They can still think through a scenario, and decide, based on what they hear, that they want what the person is offering. THAT is the difference between the God of the BIBLE and the despotic god of Calvinism. 
   So, the question remains; Do YOU want the God of the Bible, who loves ALL of His creation equally,  or, do you want to live in doubt; believing that you MIGHT be part of this select puny group but never sure if the god of Calvinism really loves you as his elect, of if he’s just jerking you around, as one of the non-elect, so that you are all the more deserving of his judgement and damnation? 
   According to the Bible, God does not have favorites.  (Romans 2:11)  The god of Calvinism DOES. Supposing that you discovered that the god of Calvinism didn’t want YOU as one of his elect after all, and that he was just letting you believe you were one of his elect, ‘all the more to judge you’.   Wouldn’t you like to know that there WAS a way to escape the eternal judgment to which this small ‘g’ god sentenced you?   Don’t you want to TRUST the Jesus of your non-Calvinist, non-‘elect’ neighbors, who seem so sure of their Salvation.  Before you answer, consider one more thing;
   Did JOHN CALVIN die for ANYONE’S sins?
No? Well then, Jesus would be in a better place, of knowing whose sins HE was going to die for, than a guy who seemed more interested in his ‘rules’ of righteousness being kept, than how those people felt about the one, whose hyper moralistic thumb they were living under.   
  Again, I will ask,   Who did Jesus come into the world to save?  SINNERS.  (1 Tim 1:15)
   Who has sinned?  Romans 3:23  ALL have sinned….  So, if Christ came into the world to save sinners and ALL have sinned, then where does John Calvin get off, insisting that Jesus only died to save a few sinners from hell?  If an inheritance is in the bank for five kids but only two accept the money, that doesn’t mean the money wasn’t meant for all five, only that two of the five accepted the money that was intended for all five of them!
   “Who are the ‘elect’?  WHOSOEVER WILL. “  ~Adrian Rogers 
Calvinism in the Garden: Who is the Author of the Fall?
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:59am
Behold I stand at the door<--- Christ at Heart's door. Notice, He doesn't have a battering ram!
  I never intended it, believe me!  I just got an email from a youtube page where I was listening to a COMMON SENSE sermon by (the LATE) Dr. J. Vernon McGee on the issue of 'ELECTION'.   On that same page,  the Late Adrian Rogers said that the 'ELECT' are WHOSOEVER WILL.   John 3:16.  God so loved the....ELECT?  He loved the WORLD.  However,  to those who buy into the doctrine of John Calvin  say that 2 Peter 3:9 says that it applies to the ELECT, whom GOD chose.  We have no say in the matter of our own eternal destiny. If God chose you, be thankful.  If He decided, on the other hand, that your mother or father or sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, best friends were created to spend eternity in hell, then that's that.  God decides. We have no choice in the matter. 
   When a Calvinist can say that, seemingly UNruffled by the possibility that his or her own family could end up spending eternity away from God, it  causes me to wonder about the spiritual state of these people.  It doesn't seem to bother them.  Yet, for reasons known only to God and Dr. Phil, I continually find myself in a LATHER  every time I end up talking to them; asking them...or trying to communicate with them that God could send your mother or father to hell, with NO say on the part of the person, as to where THEY want to go.  It doesn't bother them!!!  THAT is scary!  I'm sorry, but these people and this doctrine do things to my blood pressure that I didn't think could be accomplished, this side of rushing out of a burning building! 
   Time and time again, I have dealt with this issue with some Christian people on this site and I've worked some parts of the issue out, by way of logic as well as specific verses in the Bible ( 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2)  and then I considered something.... Take the doctrine of Calvinism back to the Garden of Eden.  If it's true that we don't have a choice, and GOD decides our eternal destiny, then God decided that Adam and Eve would fall, DESPITE HIS WARNING against eating the fruit from the tree in the center of the Garden. IFCALVINISM is TRUE, then GOD CONTRADICTED HIMSELF and purposely lead Adam and Eve into the very sin He had  warned them against! Like some cosmic Jim Henson, God was working the strings of the first couple....guiding Eve to take the fruit, as she gives into the temptation of the serpent.   IF that be true, then GOD is the author of the Fall, NOT Adam and Eve!   This would make God NEITHER Just Or Holy, but every bit as crafty as the enemy!  And it would render the Bible no more reliable than the last issue of The National Enquirer and would give me a WHOLE NEW RESPECT for ATHEISTS!  


Whose choice is it?

Does this make sense?  I ask Calvinists to respond. Do you care that God may have pre-destined your mother or father or sister, brother or best friend,co-worker, favorite next door neighbor  to eternal punishment minus their ability to decide?  Do YOU resent God for forcing YOU to go to heaven, when maybe you like the idea of roasting  marshmallows for eternity?   Do you feel like you should have had a choice?   DID Adam and Eve choose to Sin, or did GOD have Adam and Eve sin?   If the latter, HOW can God be called Just or Righteous? 
God/Serpent: Disguised as a good guy, the Calvinist god is every bit as deceptive as this thieving record-producer, who got what he had coming!  But if the god of Calvinism IS  the author of sin, who’s gonna fix his wagon???