Calvinism vs Arminianism

HydroMan: which is more accurate and why?

Zanjan: Neither - one can't re-form a religion or tradition. One can only abandon them.

Christianity is the product of the Revelation of Jesus Christ - who wants to re-create that? Only a Divine Revelator of God can re-form people. The founders of the above theologies weren't Prophets.

There's a golden thread of truth in all religion - that doesn't make any style of belief "accurate".

Angry Beaver: I don't know whether I prefer Calvin Klein or Armani tbh

Precious Pea: NEITHER both are wrong

I don't follow Calvin or Armani, Jesus I know, but Calvin and Armani I don't know

Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

We shouldn't be SPLITTING hairs over this, it's wrangling with Words, Jesus's name shouldn't be CUT up and divided

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

1Ti 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

NOPE these are doctrines of men. The only doctrine WE should be following is the one Jesus preached (not doctrines of men)

Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.



Mar 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Angry Beaver: Whats that go to do with fashion design ffs?

Angry Beaver:

Zanjan: Angry, there are indeed fashions in religion. Some of them are in clothing (orthodox sects), while some are in the zeitgeist.

You see, religion is seen as organic - it must change, develop, and adapt to the needs of the times - humanity attempts to keep up.
Fashion, on the other hand, is just a response to the boredom of the ordinary.
There's an innate urge in some individuals to either stand out from the crowd, or keep the crowd from falling asleep.

Maybe you've noticed that men's fashion rarely changes - the length of the jacket, sleeves and hem of the pants goes up and down but nothing original in at least 175 plus years.

Clothing fashion is clearly in the female domain, albeit most of us wouldn't be caught dead wearing whatever new comes down the runway. We hold out until it becomes pervasive because we're interested in both creativity AND moderation.

NoSuchName: why is this in religion?

HydroMan: because it is a religious/theological topic