Replies

It just amazes me that in light of Catholic church history, the lengths Catholics will go to to defame a man when their own priests and popes are guilty of far worse for far longer to a far greater degree.

You're making a basic mistake in logic. Just because a lot of other people do bad things or REAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLY bad things, it doesn't follow that Calvin didn't do bad things. And just because there are people who call themselves Calvinists and believe in his peculiar neo-Muslim theology (where God's will supersedes his other qualities or characteristics), it doesn't follow that a good many of them aren't genuine Christians who do much good for both believers and non-believers alike.

I’m not making the mistake in logic that you think.

I’m not denying that Calvin could have done some bad things, although I’m not familiar enough with his history to know what they are.

My point if the inconsistency in certain parties in condemning him for certain alleged actions when they adhere to a denomination whose history is rife with their own bad things.

As RC has pointed out, burning at the stake was not a new Calvinistic idea. It had a long history by the church whose adherents love to finger point and condemn it.

And if you read history, some of the burnings which some like to credit to Calvin;s account were not his doing. He opposed at least one that he was alleged to have done, and the burnings were not his decision. Catholics love to portray him as the absolute dictator of Geneva, who was in the position of making the sole decisions of life and death for these people and a careful reading of history shows that these people went to trial and that there were others involved in the decisions to execute them and burn them, a tradition established by the RCC.

Catholics are hardly in a position to point fingers and cast stones about any of the behavior they condemn Calvin for in light of their own church history.