Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Calvinism is Gospel minus Catholic false traditions
Seems that way.Every sect of Christianity thinks they're the closest to the 'real' Gospel or the 'real' meaning of the Bible. Considering that they all arbitrarily select those standards, this is just one more reason not to trust any of them.
I sat with a monk, the head of the largest Buddhist sect in China (at a certain time period) and the Taoist stories I heard are quite similar to some Calvinist beliefs. Both believe on what God is and how He works. Most if not all Calvinist would disagree with this but the head of that sect was the closest I could find to ask such personal questions. Calvinism is the closest to proper understanding of the Gospel one can get. Traditional Calvinism got many things right.---Considering that they all arbitrarily select those standards, this is just one more reason not to trust any of them.---
Seems that way.
I just left a Catholic Forum and they were driving me insane with all their weird added false traditions which they claim is from God. They admit I'm Hellbound due to myself not being blessed by a Pope or their gods.
Catholics feel that they are closer to the true meaning of the Bible than Calvinists and protestants, in general. So, like I said, almost every claim you made has been made by members of every sect of Christianity, and even other religions. It's no surprise that you find your religion to make the most sense and be the 'truest,' otherwise you wouldn't believe, presumably.I sat with a monk, the head of the largest Buddhist sect in China (at a certain time period) and the Taoist stories I heard are quite similar to some Calvinist beliefs. Both believe on what God is and how He works. Most if not all Calvinist would disagree with this but the head of that sect was the closest I could find to ask such personal questions. Calvinism is the closest to proper understanding of the Gospel one can get. Traditional Calvinism got many things right.
Arminianism, open theist and romanism is false gospel for sure.
I daresay those three groups would beg to differ, with as much conviction and certainty as you. Isn't the whole point of Christianity to be inclusive in salvation, not exclusive? Don't Catholics and all the rest, by believing in salvation through Christ, not count as 'real' Christians?I sat with a monk, the head of the largest Buddhist sect in China (at a certain time period) and the Taoist stories I heard are quite similar to some Calvinist beliefs. Both believe on what God is and how He works. Most if not all Calvinist would disagree with this but the head of that sect was the closest I could find to ask such personal questions. Calvinism is the closest to proper understanding of the Gospel one can get. Traditional Calvinism got many things right.
Arminianism, open theist and romanism is false gospel for sure.
I believe there are many real Christians. I believe most denomination have developed a system over time to condition and train a mind to think in a certain way. It's very much like I-ching, astrology and many conditioning arts. What I'm saying is the some developed dogmas show certain patterns that will only show up during long continuous practice. So, if the Catholics study, study, study, practice and practice, some over long periods of they they will see patterns and develop their lives around those patterns. Most defend their religion and become very defensive without seeing the whole overall picture. That goes for any religion or cults. Even Calvinism shows those patterns. It's best to find the system that will show you the correct patterns and Calvinism shows the Gospel in a more understandable dogma and pattern. Most don't realize that those patterns are design to send them to the dark world.I daresay those three groups would beg to differ, with as much conviction and certainty as you. Isn't the whole point of Christianity to be inclusive in salvation, not exclusive? Don't Catholics and all the rest, by believing in salvation through Christ, not count as 'real' Christians?
Most don't realize that those patterns are design to send them to the dark world.
While collecting those patterns, I effected electronic equipment at will. While not expecting those effects, it was including in my training. Extra sensory abilities or ESP comes with the package. I'm working on willing a candle to die out which I seen done by another. Most call it occultic but I call it process in understanding energy and life. Most ignore such things. Some call them the devil and Satan. It comes with my healing journey as a healer. Of course I would heal in the name of Jesus in case some reject what I said. I transfer healing, not heal. I guide the healings. I use the source of healing but it doesn't come through me.How can you be sure your patterns and dogma isn't one of those?
First of all you are assuming that we have a complete understanding of physics, what is uncertain to us now does not mean it will always be so.on the subject of free will; it has been scientific proven that we do not live in a deterministic universe (if you are interested*, research: chaos theory, event horizon, quantum probability theory and quantum mechanics e.g turbulance, weather patterns, random decay of uranium) (fyi i cant link yet). This means that nothing is taking away our free will and our actions cannot be predicted beyond a certain (relatively short) timeframe.
*if you are really interested read 'the grand design' by stephen hawking
Perhaps, but in making such a decision, why would you ultimately decide on one or the other? There is a reason, and it was that reason that caused the decision.Yes.
i believe I can choose to live or die today, can you have any more freedom than that?
To be fair, chaos theory doesn't mean we live in an indeterministic universe, just that the future gets exponentially harder to predict the further we project. It's entirely possible to have a deterministic, chaotic universe.
This explains it better than I can:how do you reason that?
it gets harder to predict the state of a system because we can't predict the state of a particle, only the probability that it will be in any one state. obviously this principle extends to the systems that are our bodies.
Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions...yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.-Wikipedia/ChaosTheory
That is not what is meant by chaos theory. A system is chaotic if small changes to its initial conditions create large, non-trivial, and effectively unpredictable changes to its long-term outcome. Weather is chaotic because a small change in initial conditions don't do something trivial like make the wind a bit stronger, but change that local breeze into precipitation and hurricanes.how do you reason that?
it gets harder to predict the state of a system because we can't predict the state of a particle, only the probability that it will be in any one state. obviously this principle extends to the systems that are our bodies.
Do you think free will exists?
If yes, how does it exist if cause and effect determines everything?
If you do not think cause and effect determines everything, then give an example.
Are you saying that remains true in a Mary's Room style scenario. i.e. a doctor of brain science knows all about your brain and it's appetite as well as hunger. Does he not know a mechanism that causes you to choose one of the two foods even if you and other ordinary mortals are unaware of it?Suppose I got hungry. That cause will determine me to eat. So I go to the fridge and see my two favorite foods, food A and food B, which I like equally. I pull them out and set them on the counter. They are equal portions, and have equal preparation times. While hunger being the cause, determines that I will eat, that cause only influences my will to choose. So when I choose food A, hunger as the cause did not determine that effect, because I could have easily chosen food B seeing how everything about it was equal to food A except for what kind of food it was.
Are you saying that remains true in a Mary's Room style scenario. i.e. a doctor of brain science knows all about your brain and it's appetite as well as hunger. Does he not know a mechanism that causes you to choose one of the two foods even if you and other ordinary mortals are unaware of it?
Depends on how the brain works. If there's some mechanism that involves true spontaneity and randomness (perhaps some sort of quantum 'switch' within synapses, or exotic timers using C14), then the doctor can't predict what will happen with complete certainty. It might not be free will as traditionally interpreted, but it still prevents (internal) omniscience.Are you saying that remains true in a Mary's Room style scenario. i.e. a doctor of brain science knows all about your brain and it's appetite as well as hunger. Does he not know a mechanism that causes you to choose one of the two foods even if you and other ordinary mortals are unaware of it?
Are you saying that remains true in a Mary's Room style scenario. i.e. a doctor of brain science knows all about your brain and it's appetite as well as hunger. Does he not know a mechanism that causes you to choose one of the two foods even if you and other ordinary mortals are unaware of it?
So what made you choose food A?So when I choose food A, hunger as the cause did not determine that effect, because I could have easily chosen food B seeing how everything about it was equal to food A except for what kind of food it was.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?