Calvin so hated one man that he had he burned at the stake using green wood so as to guarantee a slow and torturous death. The man was a Sadist among other things.
unfinished business
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
John Calvin: Murderer, Sadist, false teacher, evil/wicked and one of the founding fathers of Calvinism. What a legacy.
You're only a Calvinist because you heard, learned and believed
Philippians 4:9 KJV -
On the lighter side: Cruc's opinions are so popular, he has a "Thanks" count of 559. :crackup:
He must have been one Hell of a heretic
Calvinists aren't about the person, but his theology. You go by King David's wisdom, despite that he was both an adulterer and murderer.
He must have been one Hell of a heretic
Calvinists aren't about the person, but his theology. You go by King David's wisdom, despite that he was both an adulterer and murderer.
Do you wish to have a debate over who killed more people?
I'll take David over calvin any day -He must have been one Hell of a heretic
Calvinists aren't about the person, but his theology. You go by King David's wisdom, despite that he was both an adulterer and murderer.
Cruc, what church, denomination or cult are you affiliated with? Most likely he won't answer.
Good choice.
Sonnet
New member
The referent of 'this' in v.11 is the gospel outlined in v.3-8.
You'll notice, Cruc is unable to dispute my claims about Calvin.
Both the Catholics and the reformers had it wrong. Yet, over the ages in spite of the many false doctrines/gospels presented, God was still able to bring the simple truth out.
:kookoo: You are correct Ma'am
Sonnet
New member
Cheers miss.
hehe!
Thank you for clarifying.
The Lord didn't prophesy His dbr, until Peter confessed Him as the Christ. Why did Peter need to do that, before the Lord began to teach His dbr? It's a plot point.1 What does it mean?
1 - "a significant event within a plot that spins the action around in another direction"
You missed/are missing the issue:
1.The good news/gospel of the kingdom is not equivalent to the good news/gospel of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.There is more than 1 piece of good news/gospel, in the book, and not all of the good news has, as its focus, salvation/justification.
2. The content of faith, required to be believed, in Mt.-John, prior to the dbr:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...lieved-in-Mt-John-prior-to-the-dbr&highlight=
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
eclectic.......
eclectic.......
Where did you get that I was a Christian? See my affiliation is "Other" - I don't identify necessarily with traditional orthodox Christianity..... as my brand of Christianity, if I owned it would be more progressive, universalist, gnostic and spiritualist in orientation. I was raised within 'Christendom'. On a more liberal front with my esoteric studies, I sport the title of 'Eclectic Theosophist'....see that in my posts and profile info. area. I've engaged here over a decade in that same spirit of free investigation and 'creative dialogue'. I did when I joined here identify as a 'Christian (Other)', but morphed away from using that 'label' after engaging so much with fundamentalists and became disenfranchised with the 'title'. Like a bug splat on my windshield, I wiped it off.
There are many kinds of 'Christians' as well as denominations of Christianity.
Paul has some great universal gnostic insights and allegorical teachings, but when contextualized within the framework of an evolving religious tradition, there are problems with his relationship to the original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem and how he took his own gospel by personal revelation and made it big among the gentiles. Do your own research. Hence while I'm a spiritualist and student of religious/spiritual principles and concepts,....on another end of the spectrum I'm also a skeptic, even an 'agnostic' in some areas,.....even though at heart I'm a true gnostic (one who uses/values 'knowledge' as a base for his condition and ultimate destiny).
eclectic.......
Where did you get that I was a Christian? See my affiliation is "Other"
- I don't identify necessarily with traditional orthodox Christianity..... as my brand of Christianity, if I owned it would be more progressive, universalist, gnostic and spiritualist in orientation. I was raised within 'Christendom'. On a more liberal front with my esoteric studies, I sport the title of 'Eclectic Theosophist'....see that in my posts and profile info. area. I've engaged here over a decade in that same spirit of free investigation and 'creative dialogue'. I did when I joined here identify as a 'Christian (Other)', but morphed away from using that 'label' after engaging so much with fundamentalists and became disenfranchised with the 'title'. Like a bug splat on my windshield, I wiped it off. There are many kinds of 'Christians' as well as denominations of Christianity.
Paul has some great universal gnostic insights and allegorical teachings, but when contextualized within the framework of an evolving religious tradition, there are problems with his relationship to the original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem and how he took his own gospel by personal revelation and made it big among the gentiles. Do your own research. Hence while I'm a spiritualist and student of religious/spiritual principles and concepts,....on another end of the spectrum I'm also a skeptic, even an 'agnostic' in some areas,.....even though at heart I'm a true gnostic (one who uses/values 'knowledge' as a base for his condition and ultimate destiny).
How did you come to "know" that you are an agnostic?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Note I said in some areas that are 'unknowable' I could claim 'agnostic' in those areas
- but if you want to highlight the fact that 'gnosis' is needed to 'know' anything (even that you don't know), that gives props to 'gnosticism'. By these terms and their definitions then, even you could have both 'gnosis' and 'agnosis' at varying shifts or periods in space and time, isn't that possible? Obviously while I enjoy the path of the mystic, I also acknowledge such a place referred to by some mystics as "the cloud of unknowing",...that there is a realm of utter transcendence of ordinary knowledge that is in its essence 'unknowable', but is still intuitively recognized, so that a paradox of sorts exists in the contrasting worlds of both light and darkness, these existing in this conditional realm of space-time relativity. So, I'll let you play with the nauances therein