What's calvinism?

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Every idle word granite, every idle word!

You think it's okay to say such things about people you know little or nothing about, especially Christian people, whom you are supposedly allied with? You do more damge than you could possibly know! How about getting the video yourself and watching it before attempting to discredit it by slandering its producer. Maybe you'll learn something.

What things? The video's produced by Enyart. So, what I said is accurate. I'm beginning to think this pet phrase of yours is the best thing you have.

By the way: I am NOT allied with all self-professed Christians, and I'm unequivocally opposed to Enyart on most issues. Let's avoid confusion in the future. "Christian people" can be friend and foe. I think you'd agree with me on that.
 

Apollo

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Little unfinished business before I move on. Hijacked this thread long enough. Apologies to lost anomaly. Thanks for the ride.

Clete,

If you want Bob to do your thinking for you, not a problem. Lot of that going on around here. Seems like if there was bona fide evidence for something as important as the Resurrection, would have read about it in USA Today. Missed it entirely. Strange world.

If you cannot offer even a remote suggestion of actual evidence on your own, when you have a literal “mountain” of evidence to pick from, next time do your homework, or think twice before handing out “Stupid Person of the Day” awards. Stupid as compared to what, a block of wood, or you?

Doing the best I can. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I am stupid. But, stupid as I may be, I’m smart enough to know there is nothing unique about Christianity’s resurrected savior-god, and that’s saying a lot. That round, I think, goes to me. Let the peanut gallery be the judge.

Wrapping up, you called me a liar. An ignorant liar, as I recall. Don’t much care for that. Ignorant, so sue me. A liar? You also implied that, given the opportunity, I might steal. If anyone’s been acting like a “swine” in this scenario, it’s you. This is what you’ve accomplished. You have committed the cardinal Christian sin of judging someone’s heart. Actions, yes. Motive, no. Not the heart. That’s your “Christian” law. If you don’t know that much, my nine-year-old knows more than you.

Christians seem to have a knack – call it a “gift” – for assuming the worst of people. Original sin, and all. Frankly, for all you know, I’m an angel, and your god sent me to test you. Kinda like ‘this call is being monitored for training purposes’ thing. The customer from hell. Wonder what feedback your boss is going to have. Not going to be pleasant. Slip and fall accident around the house. Downsized at work. The mumps. Someone keys your car. Sowing, reaping, sowing, reaping. God works in mysterious ways, you know.

Other than the liar thing, I’m done. Clete, please explain.

Thanks for engaging.
 

LightSon

New member
Apollo,
It is my heartfelt conviction that the resurrection of Christ is true. His death was witnessed; His post-resurrection state were witnessed; many actually touched Him.

What kind of "evidence" would you accept?

As far as your assertions regarding many pre-christian "resurrected savior-gods," I'm going to put the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that. What is your evidence? The only time I hear these "rumors" is from atheists, hoping to debunk Christianity. It would be just like our arch-enemy to conjure up a myriad of counterfeits, in mythological form, for the purpose of undermining our faith.

One of the most compelling witness-based observations is Peter and the other disciples. A man may die for a cause if he has convinced himself of its veracity, despite evidence to the contrary. But it is not reasonable that a man would die for something he knows to be a lie.

Peter saw Christ die. Peter was a coward during the trial process and denied Jesus multiple times. Something changed Peter into a bold and staunch firebrand. What was it that changed him? Had Peter's last memory of Jesus been one of death and defeat, there would have been no reason to devote himself to Christ. If Peter and the others had conjured up a conspiracy, it would have fallen apart at the first sign of persecution. Given the fact of Christ's death, the only compelling reason, that I can think of, which would compel Peter and company to face down sword and lion, was that they were transformed by experiencing the resurrected Christ.

Your motto is "live and let live". That's fine while you breathe, but that won't help you much once you are pushing up daisies. Will you acknowledge once again that if Christ died and rose again, that this lends insurrmountable veracity to the Christian worldview?
 

smaller

BANNED
Banned
Cephas stood CONDEMNED at Antioch, POST risen Jesus.

He was a continual example of a partial view of Jesus Christ tainted by the adversar(ies.)

None of us are any different, except by degree
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"As far as your assertions regarding many pre-christian 'resurrected savior-gods,' I'm going to put the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that."

Look at Osiris and Mithra, to name two. This isn't an atheist-fueled urban legend; this is actual history from Egypt and Rome.

"It would be just like our arch-enemy to conjure up a myriad of counterfeits, in mythological form, for the purpose of undermining our faith."

Examine the effect the Sol Invictus and Mithra cults had on Christianity, thanks to Constantine. Question: why would Satan create myths or counterfeits that were successful enough to sucker the early Christian church and completely change our faith as we know it? Either we failed or he succeeded.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Apollo,

I did not insinuate that you would steal. I don't insinuate much; usually if I want to accuse someone of something I just come right out and do it. I'm not much on beating around the bush. As for the lying accusation, you may have a different understanding of what lying is but and intentional attempt to mislead or deceive is lying, and you are guilty of that with out question.
And by the way, there is no prohibition against judging anyone’s heart in "Christian law" as you put it. Most Christians think that such a "law" exists, but they would be wrong. There is only a prohibition against being a hypocrite when you judge. IN other words, you shouldn't judge if you are doing the same thing that you are judging the other person for. If you do, you will be judged by the same measure you use to judge by.

Judging for dummies...
1. Take the plank out of your own eye.
2. Then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

So, we are to judge rightly! Whether we are judging the actions themselves or the hearts of those committing them is of no consequences. ‘Judge rightly’, applies in either case.

As for the evidence you asked for and were given. If you choose not to take advantage of a complete presentation that has been well produced and is available free of charge to unbelievers like yourself then that's on you. As for my saying that there is a literal mountain of evidence for the resurrection, I meant exactly that. And if you read the description of the video on the web page I linked to, then you know that that phrase is used as a catch line in the video. I used the phrase in hopes of getting the exact reaction from you that I got, specifically so that I could send you to that site and present a video with the same catch phrase in its advertisement so that perhaps your interest would be peaked and that you would get the video. The tactic has worked every single time I have ever used it. And it's really brilliant (if I do say so myself) because whether the individual gets the video or not, I know that I'm getting ready to learn a lot about the persons real motivations.
You see, there is simply no good reason for you not to get that video. You asked for the information and I gave you a simple and free way to get that information and yet you refused it! Why? Well, the only possible reason is that you don't want to know. You are willfully ignorant, which I knew from the moment I read your first post! You totally deserved the stupid post of the day! Not only was the assertion in the post unsubstantiated in the post, it was off topic and more than that it just screamed at me that whoever posted that drivel, HATED God! I knew from the start that you were a knuckle head and that this conversation had almost no possibility of getting anywhere, which is why I had to be prodded several times before I even actively engaged this conversation and is the reason I have been quick and consistent in pointing out when you've said idiotic, sinful things. The fact of the matter is that you hate God for whatever reason and you take every opportunity to slander Him.
And the real tricky thing is that you know better. I don't care how many college classes you take, you will never find ANY religion anywhere in all of recorded history, that is anything but a list of rules by which we can get to god. Christianity is THE ONLY faith in all of the history of mankind where you see God coming to us, and not only that but doing so by GRACE, not via of a list of rules! In this respect Christianity is completely unique and I strongly suspect that you knew that before you posted that nonsense about what you learned at college. I'm not saying that you made it up necessarily. It may be that you are just parroting some idiot college professor that perhaps presented some information in such a way as to insinuate something that is not supported by actual history. Either way, it doesn't matter. Christianity is not a derivation of some prior pagan religion and you know that as well as I do. (Your stating otherwise was an outright lie, by the way.)
Any way, my point is that in my experience when someone goes to such great lengths to slander God in such a convoluted and idiotic ways as you have on this thread, it is generally because that person knows down deep inside that he is a wicked and vile person, guilty of all sorts of things that only he know about (he and God). And God had better not be real or else you're in big trouble. Either that or they blame God for some tragedy that has happened and they're angry and sometimes a little of both mixed in there together. I don't know which applies to you, although, if you continue to post on this site and I have further contact with you, I will figure it out eventually. And yes, there are exceptions, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it very seriously and I'll figure that out too.
So, I will close by asking you again to get that video. PLEASE! Just get it and watch it. It won't cost you anything but the time it takes to watch it and if it's not what it claims to be then you are no worse off than you are right now. On the other hand, however, what if it is exactly what it claims to be and it turns out that Jesus really is God and the He really did die and really did rise from the grave? What then? Well, that prospect may scare the crap out of you because then you have to change everything, right? Everything! I would venture to say that there is not one single aspect of you life that wouldn't have to be turned on its ear if you came to the conclusion that Jesus is the creator God of the universe. Whether you get the video or not that definitely something for you to think about, isn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete


P.S. I've been super busy over the last couple of days and am still very short on time. I didn’t do a lot of editing on this post, so I apologize to those who read it, for any run-on sentences or other annoyances of grammar that I didn't edit out!
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Clete: if you have no arguments of your own, and rely solely on some video produced by Enyart, you need to grow up.

Quit judging Apollo, and others, and try to take from him and his experiences what you will.
 

LightSon

New member
granite1010,
For some reason, I had assumed you were a Christian. Please forgive me if I made a wrong assumption.

So instead of assuming, I'll ask you plainly. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by LightSon

granite1010,
For some reason, I had assumed you were a Christian. Please forgive me if I made a wrong assumption.

So instead of assuming, I'll ask you plainly. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Yes. Why?
 

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by granite1010

Yes. Why?

Why do I ask?

Because it seems that your recent points on this thread are aimed to lend credibility to the idea that Christianity has borrowed "themes" from pagan religions. I interpret this as an attempt to undermine Christ's authenticity and Biblical authority. I invite you to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. I hope that I am wrong.

I need to ask this question and then will stop pestering you. (for now). ;)

Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins according the the scripture, was buried and rose again?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by LightSon

Why do I ask?

Because it seems that your recent points on this thread are aimed to lend credibility to the idea that Christianity has borrowed "themes" from pagan religions. I interpret this as an attempt to undermine Christ's authenticity and Biblical authority. I invite you to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. I hope that I am wrong.

I need to ask this question and then will stop pestering you. (for now). ;)

Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins according the the scripture, was buried and rose again?

The idea does not need me to lend credibility to it. Christianity HAS borrowed themes from pagan religions; no shame in that. Look at Christmas and Easter--those two are gimmes.

I think many Christians respond with distaste to the idea because we're convinced that Christianity is absolutely and positively unique in every way, shape, and form, and that's simply not true. We are, after all, an off-shoot of Judaism at the very core--the history of our faith is replete with borrowings and amalgamations. The sign of the cross, baptism, the Christmas tree--these are not ideas unique to or original to Christianity.

The issue isn't with me--or others--who point these things out; the issue people have is with church history, and that's not my problem.

Now, how does any of this somehow undermine biblical authority? Well, I don't know if it does. I wouldn't say so. Neither did Augustine: he claimed those who worshipped Mithra worshipped the same God he did, and early Christianity borrowed very heavily from the Mithraic tradition.

I'm an Anglican who recites the Nicean creed every Sunday. I agree with every word of it. Hopefully that answers your last question.
 

Swordsman

New member
Originally posted by granite1010

The idea does not need me to lend credibility to it. Christianity HAS borrowed themes from pagan religions; no shame in that. Look at Christmas and Easter--those two are gimmes.

I think many Christians respond with distaste to the idea because we're convinced that Christianity is absolutely and positively unique in every way, shape, and form, and that's simply not true. We are, after all, an off-shoot of Judaism at the very core--the history of our faith is replete with borrowings and amalgamations. The sign of the cross, baptism, the Christmas tree--these are not ideas unique to or original to Christianity.


Great points. I completely concur with you.
 

LightSon

New member
I don't deny certain extra-Biblical additions: i.e. the Christmas tree. I care about the Biblical "truths". The question remains: was Christ who He said He was? Or is he an amalgamated copycat type of Savior?

When atheists bring into the discussion Mithra or Osiris, and the idea that Mithra was "the light of the world, and a savior God who died and resurrected," the implication is clear. The implication is that 1st century Christians simply borrowed these themes as well. If all we did was borrow, then Christ is fantasy. If the Bible is not an authoritative statement from God on the veracity of Jesus and His status as savior-God, then our faith falls over.

Swordsman and granite, is it your intention to demonstrate that Christianity is a copycat religion and that Jesus is a fraud? In this case, the Nicean creed can likewise be jettisoned. It is rooted in scripture; a scripture which you are arguing is a simple amalgamation. These are the conclusions that a naive listener will draw from your position.

It is a good thing I am not so easily swayed, or I would have just dropped kicked Jesus from my world view. Is this really where you want to drag me?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
LightSon: no one wants to "drag" you anywhere (at least I don't).

Personally, I find it easy to believe that the rhetoric was lifted from, say, the Mithra cult and blended into what Christianity already had. The similarities between the two--as you demonstrate yourself--simply can't be ignored. The sign of the cross and the wafer-with-wine communion ritual were borrowed from Mithraism. There's no reason to believe that all early Christians lifted from the Mithra cult were the outward liturgical forms; Christianity adapted and blended from a variety of outside influences and this is just one example. The language and rhetoric are strikingly close. Why is it so terrible to admit that?
 

Swordsman

New member
Originally posted by granite1010

LightSon: no one wants to "drag" you anywhere (at least I don't).

Personally, I find it easy to believe that the rhetoric was lifted from, say, the Mithra cult and blended into what Christianity already had. The similarities between the two--as you demonstrate yourself--simply can't be ignored. The sign of the cross and the wafer-with-wine communion ritual were borrowed from Mithraism. There's no reason to believe that all early Christians lifted from the Mithra cult were the outward liturgical forms; Christianity adapted and blended from a variety of outside influences and this is just one example. The language and rhetoric are strikingly close. Why is it so terrible to admit that?

Because he, like a number of Christians, are caught up in their traditions passed down the ages.

LightSon, I believe Christ is who He said He is. Anything (crosses, chrismas trees, nativity scenes) other than God Himself are simply icons. You choose to idolize these things or not.

Neither granite or myself have fantasized Christ in any manner. He is God, everything else is just matter.
 

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by Swordsman

Because he, like a number of Christians, are caught up in their traditions passed down the ages.

LightSon, I believe Christ is who He said He is. Anything (crosses, chrismas trees, nativity scenes) other than God Himself are simply icons. You choose to idolize these things or not.

Neither granite or myself have fantasized Christ in any manner. He is God, everything else is just matter.

As I said, I have no problem dropping extra-Biblical traditions, e.g. chrismas trees, nativity scenes. So let us move past that.

What I care about, as I already said, are Bible-based "truths", like who Christ said He was. That is what is at issue, by bringing in Mithra. You seemed to agree with granite on this point. By suggesting that Christianity has built its faith on the tradition of Mithra, it is you that is undermining Christ, IMO. Please correct me if that is not what you meant. Is Jesus the light of the world of His own authority? Or did this notion come from Mithra?

Swordsman, you claim to believe "Christ is who He said He is." I appreciate that. If I understand granite correctly, he is arguing that the whole concept of the savior-God (as we believe Christ to be) came from the Mithra religion and other religions as well. In other words, the NT writers, borrowed these themes, essentially cobbling together a Mithra-based traditional Christ for us to believe in.

So let me ask you. Do you believe God gave us Christ? Or did Mithra give us Christ? Or both?
 

Swordsman

New member
Originally posted by LightSon

As I said, I have no problem dropping extra-Biblical traditions, e.g. chrismas trees, nativity scenes. So let us move past that.

What I care about, as I already said, are Bible-based "truths", like who Christ said He was. That is what is at issue, by bringing in Mithra. You seemed to agree with granite on this point. By suggesting that Christianity has built its faith on the tradition of Mithra, it is you that is undermining Christ, IMO. Please correct me if that is not what you meant. Is Jesus the light of the world of His own authority? Or did this notion come from Mithra?

Swordsman, you claim to believe "Christ is who He said He is." I appreciate that. If I understand granite correctly, he is arguing that the whole concept of the savior-God (as we believe Christ to be) came from the Mithra religion and other religions as well. In other words, the NT writers, borrowed these themes, essentially cobbling together a Mithra-based traditional Christ for us to believe in.

So let me ask you. Do you believe God gave us Christ? Or did Mithra give us Christ? Or both?

I do not have faith in the Mithra religious traditions. That is all they are, traditions.

Yes, God gave us Christ. You got me pegged. :)
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"If I understand granite correctly, he is arguing that the whole concept of the savior-God (as we believe Christ to be) came from the Mithra religion and other religions as well."

I haven't said this anywhere, ever. If we REALLY want to split hairs, let's point out that the savior-God concept is extremely old--far older than the Mithra cult.

All I've said is that Christianity borrowed some of the traditions and some of the rhetoric of the Mithra cult. And frankly, I don't think it's even up for debate; the information on the Mithraic tradition is out there and speaks for itself.

Mithra didn't give us Christ. Christ gave us himself.
 

geralduk

New member
Your statement is contadictory!

On the one hand you say the salvation of God is OLDER than mythriac 'theology'
Yet then would cede glory to them which is not theres.

ALL religions of the world do in thier OWN way project a means of 'salvation'
But they are NOT Gods way.
Therefore I would not give ANY of them a grain of salt or 'glory' that pertains only to God.
seeing that the ONLY true salvation and hope for man is by GODS way.
and that from CAINE and ABLE onwards you have had FALSE religion running alongside "THE faith that was once and for all delievred unto the saints" and which has ALWAYS been in OPPOSITION to the truth and has persecuted those who uphold it and would like Ciane resort to the same sort of action if they had the liberty to do so.
Therefore false religions and the worlds so called 'faiths' have NOTHING to contribute or have anything that it os the truth as to the WAY of salvtion and reconciliation to God.
For they have PERVERTED the truth of God and "changed the truth into a lie"
That which was proclaimed and promised by God in the garden of Eden and PRACTICED by ABLE and REJECTED by Caine [POINTED to the HIM who was promised and MANIFESTED in "these last days"
The "hope of the wicked dies with them" But he who's hope is in Him who promised has a sure and certain one.
"which maketh not ashamed"
Therefore the glory is Gods who both willed it and fullfilled it and the peace is mans who accepts it.
 
Top