[CartesianFart] If you could restrict yourself to explaining and arguing for your points, rather than spraying random abuse about, I'd be very grateful. I'll take the second question first... in fact the problem of how to relate grace and free will is, historically, the biggest debate. It's a little misleading to present Arminianism as a dispute between Arminius and Calvin (given that Calvin was dead when Arminius came along), or indeed as one between "Arminians" and "Calvinists" because the Arminians were Calvinists, just Calvinists who didn't believe in predestination. Arminius' real target was actually Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, who formulated the doctrine of double predestination more clearly. In any case, there was nothing new at all in the whole thing. It had been debated virtually endlessly since at least the fifth century, when Augustine and Pelagius had a big argument about the nature of grace and the nature of free will. The "semi-Pelagian" debate raged on for many decades, especially in Gaul. In the ninth century it all flared up once more in the form of the dispute between Gottschalk and Hincmar of Rheims. Gottschalk was condemned for teaching double predestination. Then in the sixteenth century we have the Reformers versus the Council of Trent, and Michael Baius putting his oar in. In particular, there's Luther versus Erasmus. We also have, in Spain, Molina versus Bañez. So the only new thing about Arminianism was that it was a debate within Protestantism, rather than one within Catholicism or between Protestants and Catholics, as in the past. The same could be said for Amyraldeanism, which was the French equivalent of Arminianism. It also coincided with Jansenism, which was basically a Catholic version of Calvinism. As for which one is more in line with traditional Christianity, the answer is clearly Arminianism. The Catholic Church has always rejected double predestination and the denial of contra-causal free will. However, it has also always insisted that what happens is what God wants to happen. Whether that's a coherent position or not, I'm not sure, although I think it can be. But as far as I know, Arminianism needn't preclude faith in providence. The more extreme version would be Socinianism - they denied that God even knows what's going to happen in the future. In other words, traditional mainstream Christianity would reject the dichotomy you propose between either God choosing people or people choosing God. Those who have opted for the one (such as Gottschalk) or the other (such as Pelagius), without balancing it with the other, have been condemned. I haven't read Küng on ethics so I must go by the quotes you give, although it would be good to know the source. It doesn't seem to me that in these quotes Küng is saying that all religions have exactly the same ethical systems; rather, he is saying that the major religions share very similar ethical standards. But that is not the same thing at all, and it is at least much more plausible. But do you have a quote where Küng says that all religions have a version of the "Golden Rule"? He doesn't say that in the quote you provide. In fact he is right to attribute versions of the "Golden Rule" to the religions mentioned, and he could also have pointed out that Plato formulated it four centuries before either Jesus or Hillel. I must say that it doesn't look to me at all that he's saying that: it looks to me like he's saying that there's a roughly common core to the ethical systems of certain major religions, and we need to extract that common core and live by it rather than by any "system" at all. In which case, he's saying exactly the opposite of your interpretation - people shouldn't just follow their traditional systems at all, but aim to look beyond systems for the motivation that is common to them all. That would make Küng something of a situation ethicist, like Fletcher and Niebuhr. Again, you're being too vague: "the same moral standards" is not a clearly meaningful phrase. Küng is not at all saying that the ethical systems of all religions are identical, which is the view you initially attacked. At least, he's not saying that in the quotes you provide.