Two religious questions

[tsgeisel]

Question 1: Given Calvinist theories on predestination (Summary: "You're either of the elect or you're not."), what prompted them to live a path of denial and basically no fun? Is it just a modern-day way of thinking to say "Well, if I'm of the elect, then it doesn't matter what bad I do, and if I'm not of the elect, it doesn't matter what good I

Comments

[kay_gmd]

1) I think the Calvinist figure that the elect would act good, and all wanted to assume (or look like) they were the elect.

2) I've wondered about this to. It seems like the beliefs are similar, but the practices are different, but I actually don't know much about the UU personally. I have a friend that is Ba'hai, and his practice at least seemed a good deal more demanding than what I'd expect from the UU.

[kid_lit_fan]

I agree with part 1). Everyone wanted, or at least hoped to be the elect, so they acted as the elect would act. The modern belief you cited in the original post seems to be one a that some very unpleasant politicians, etc, hold hold; they're going to heaven even if they sin, and sin again. And they're not actually homosexuals (cough, Ted Haggard) because that's bad and they're not bad, therefore...

I don't know any Ba'hai well enough to address part 2). I used to babysit for a family who called themselves Ba'hai, but it seemed to consist of mildly celebrating her Christians traditions and his Jewish ones, and a symbol in their living room.

[temperance14]

Ba'hai (at least at the time I encountered them) seem to offer additional focus on removal of perceived racial boundaries.

[temperance14]

This sounded snooty. My reply was not meant as a denial of racial boundaries, barriers, etc. It was referring to Ba'hai's original focus on teach the world about the fallacy of race as a natural division of the human race. Ba'hai did not only accept "mixed marriages" but actively encouraged such as a way to change cultural boundaries.

[silkfiddlerette]

1. From what I remember the way that you could tell that someone what of the elected was that they acted good, made money, worked hard, etc. If you were a liar and a theif, obviously you weren't one of the elected. I think the puritains even believed that being wealthy was an obvious sign of being part of the elect, hence they got the shnazy seats in church, and also would explain why when the Salem witch hunts ended when the governer's wife was accused (rich=good=not witch=lying little girls)

[squeekiemouse]

Calvinists came to believe that their worldly rewards were an indication of whether or not they were elect (Calvin himself didnt push this at ALL). Thus, calvinists worked really bloody damn hard to amass said worldly rewards and didnt have much time for sinning. They got rid of a lot of holidays, and rarely had any fun because you could be working that time.

If you want to read a fascinating book about this look up Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Its a really cool book, and very famous and influential--it talks about many types of protestantism, but calvinism factors very heavily in his argument.