Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 477 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
checkmate (0 DX)
23 Jan 10 UTC
URL or ID#
when posting this, they recomend:
"If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID# of the game"
but i cannot find the url or id# of my game
6 replies
Open
hellalt (80 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
700D wta game
anyone interested in playing with me a 100 D/player wta anon 1day/turn game?
19 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
Live game 5 min interval 5 pts WTA Public Messaging
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19785
need 2
1 reply
Open
Danny (100 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
England opening strategy
strategy
33 replies
Open
checkmate (0 DX)
23 Jan 10 UTC
cheap world live
some one wants to play? gameID=19779
2 replies
Open
Biddis (364 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
The quiet forum
Is it just me or has the forum become pretty quiet as late? I used to enjoy coming on in my state of, shall we say, fragileness!! to read some crazy forum chat about religion or moral issues. I come on today, caked to the high heavens and there are no good debates to join - boo!
10 replies
Open
The_Master_Warrior (10 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Where are my points?
Because they're not there and I'm not in any games.
6 replies
Open
baumhaeuer (245 D)
17 Jan 10 UTC
Calvinists here
I'm curious: how many of the Calvinists on here are five-point Calvinists? And if you're not, but still call yourself a Calvinist, just what part of the theology do you accept?
(I'm interested because I'm writing a research paper called "Calvinism and Lutheranism")
Draugnar (0 DX)
18 Jan 10 UTC
So I should ask, as a ELCA Lutheran who was raised in the ALC before the merger, what is your definition of "Lutheranism"? There are a ton of "flavors" of the world's largest protestant denomination.
Tantris (2456 D)
18 Jan 10 UTC
I was always more of a fan of Hobbes. He seemed to be a great friend and companion. Plus, he is cute!
Thucydides (864 D(B))
18 Jan 10 UTC
We definitely have free will, that's all I'm gonna say about that.

And don't Calvinists also believe that only 144,000 people will get into heaven?

No wait that was Jehovah's Witness sorry.

But they do believe that, as a result of the free will thing, that there are some people who are simply destined for hell; nothing can be done for them.

That's messed up I think I'm definitely not a Calvinist.
DJEcc24 (246 D)
18 Jan 10 UTC
Well as long as you have lutheran and calvinsit why not throw anglican in too? three major branches that broke off from catholic.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
18 Jan 10 UTC
@Draugnar:
By "Lutheranism," I mean what Luther taught. The same for "Calvinism."

@ DJ:
The research paper is more like "Calvinism VS. Lutheranism," but I prefer calmer writing, so I chose that aformentioned title. The reason I am doing this at all in stead writing about Germanic languages (like I wanted) is because linguistics did not fall under any of the available subjects I was given the option of writing about. Since the institution I am studying under is quite pro-Calvinism, I, being Lutheran, decided that I would thumb my nose at them and explain a number of theological flaws in Calvinism. That is why Anglicanism does not come into the mix.

@Thucydides:
That's one of the big problems with Calvin's theology: dispite what the Bible says, he insisted on double-predestination, which is where the people getting irrevocably sent to hell comes from. A lot of the paper is spent explaining how that spills over into the rest of the theology.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
19 Jan 10 UTC
I guess there arn't that many Calvinists here...
Ursa (1617 D)
19 Jan 10 UTC
I am one.
Draugnar (0 DX)
19 Jan 10 UTC
Glad to hear you are a Lutheran and looking for Calvinist point of views and not a Calvinist looking for other Calvinists to back up your point of view. I'm sure both sides will get a fair treatment that way.
Ursa (1617 D)
19 Jan 10 UTC
I think the differences between the two protestant churches should be sought in the first fifty years after 1517, the Reformation. Ofcourse, the greatest difference would be what you yourself say: Lutherans following the teachings of Luther and Calvinists following Calvin. Calvinism has had great influence on the Low Countries, particulary the Dutch Republic (after persecution in present Belgium).

Differences would be:

* The view on the Meal of the Lord. I believe Luther stated a 'half-presence' of God in bread and wine while Calvin learned it was wholly symbolic.

* The simple interior of churches. I've been in Wittenberg, the home of Luther. The church was still very much like a catholic church, except the central part of the word. Most Calvinist churches are completely unadorned. No pictures of biblical persons or statues, just sometimes crosses or other symbols like 'PX'.

* The view of man and predestination. I don't know Luther's teachings on these subjects tho. I do know Calvin (and particularly some of his followers) is quite extreme stating man can do no good of his own and only desires evil.

* About predestination. In the early Republic and there was a theological and political conflict between Arminians and Gomarists, both Calvinists. Arminius stated man did have a choice because of God's foreknowlegde who would believe and who not, and as such rewarded those who would believe. Gomarus put it the other way around, that God predestined persons and so they would believe. He also stated man had no influence on this.

In the subsequent Synod of Dordt both were proven wrong. The Synod concluded God did gave belief to those He had predestined but also that men have the choice. Through Gods power men would choose for Him. This is what most, if not all, Calvinist churches learn up to today. This 'softened' statement did however not prevent the persecution and banishment of Arminius' followers (called the Remonstrants). After a generation or two they were allowed back in the Republic and are still present under the name of the Remonstrant brotherhood. However, they have lost much of their Calvinist and even christian beliefs due to the Enlightenment and secularism.

The Arminian statements can also be found back in different American movements like the Great Awakening.

Timur (673 D(B))
19 Jan 10 UTC
What a load of absolute bullshit! Who gives a tuppenny GODdamn f*ck? Ye're a' damned. Live with it.
Timur (673 D(B))
19 Jan 10 UTC
"And don't Calvinists also believe that only 144,000 people will get into heaven?"

Are you counting? We are 6 billion, so far. When was this spurious idea propounded?
Timur (673 D(B))
19 Jan 10 UTC
Harp lessons: 250 RMB per hour.
zrallo (100 D)
19 Jan 10 UTC
Im a big Calvinist! Subscribe to the five points and all that, i think they're a good systematic organization of biblical doctrine on election and salvation
Timur (673 D(B))
19 Jan 10 UTC
Blues harp: 350 RMB.
Timur (673 D(B))
19 Jan 10 UTC
Some of us don't really want to be systematised nor salved . . . by you or anyone else, thank you very much.
Centurian (3257 D)
19 Jan 10 UTC
Timur, some of us don't want you to troll. This is clearly just a friendly conversation initiated by a guy who wants to write an essay. What is your problem?
zrallo (100 D)
19 Jan 10 UTC
you got it buddy :)
You're leaving Anglican's out?!?!??!!

**pouts**
Sorry couldn't resist. If the converstion goes on toward predestination, I might be of a little service, but I'm enjoying the information.
zrallo (100 D)
20 Jan 10 UTC
In answer to the original question, as a Calvinist I would say that we sometimes get a bad rap for it, since people think we follow John Calvin instead of Jesus and his ideas instead of the Bible. This isn't really true, since all Calvin did was provide an excellent summary of the Biblical doctrines on which we differ from arminians or methodists
Timur (673 D(B))
20 Jan 10 UTC
@Centurian: Sorry, don't really understand the verb 'to troll', but guess I should leave this thread, which is fine by me. It's just too depressing.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
20 Jan 10 UTC
@ Ursa:

The Lord's Supper:
I'm not sure what you mean by "half-presence." While Catholics believe only in recieving the body and blood through the mouth and most other protestants believe in only the reception of the bread and wine through the mouth, Luther taught all four are eaten.

The simple church interiors:
Luther was out to reform the Catholic church, not split, which is why, ceremonially, Lutherans are quite similar to Catholics. The Catholics' issues were more in the theology.

Predestination:
If you boil it down, you have Calvinism (or Gomarism): God, from all eternity, deciding who goes to heaven and who to hell, without any conditions (Unconditional Election). There are many passages attesting to Unconditional Election, so, if God chooses some people for heaven, then, by not choosing others, He is condemning them to hell. This would ordinarily be the case.
Arminianism (used in a slightly broad way): they saw the problem (Eternal Reprobation)with Double-Predestination, so they went and said that man chooses to either accept God or reject him. This would make it "conditional election." There are many passages attesting to man going to hell because of his rejection of God, so, if man can reject God, then by not rejecting Him, man can accept God. Ordinarily, this would be the case.
Lutheranism: There are no Bible passages reffering to Eternal Reprobation or Conditional Election. Instead, you have Unconditional Election passages and Conditional Condemnation passages contradicting each other's logical results. This leads to the conclusion that, dispite our logic, while the credit for salvation goes to God, the fault of damnation goes to man.

Thanks for telling me those details about Dutch history. I was unaware of what happened the the remonstrants after the Synod of Dordt.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
20 Jan 10 UTC
@ zrallo:
Yes, I'm aware that Calvinists put their faith in Christ, not Calvin.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
20 Jan 10 UTC
@ Crazy Anglican:
What are Anglican teachings on predestination? I've been told that, in a lot of areas, there's a number of arguments going on among them...
I've not heard any real debate about predestination. I was of the opinion that the Anglican Communion saw salvation as a gift from God that could be freely accepted. I'll look into the church doctrine if you like.
The following was completely plagiarized by an interesting website on the subject, and is reflective of my own study an understanding not one bit.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nowhim.html

"Historically, the Anglican Church (and the Episcopal) has proven to be able to absorb a very wide spectrum of beliefs, from very conservative Calvinists, to very fluid Arminians, to very 'conciliatory' liberals. Their foundational document is the Thirty-Nine Articles, in which the longest article is on Predestination, but it is less important today than it was at the Reformation.



"XVII. Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only- begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. "





One famous expositor of this (W. H. Griffith Thomas) explicates this in fashion that clearly avoids the arbitrary label, and probably avoids the unconditional label, since he seems to be referring to a 'class election' (instead of an individual one). From W.H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles. Baker:1977:



"The Calvinistic view is an attempt to fit everything into a logical system, but the problem remains, why, if God can regenerate every sinner, He does not do it? One thing may be regarded as certain, that there is nothing arbitrary in the Divine action. We may not be able to understand the reasons, but notwithstanding this we may be sure that they are based upon wisdom, truth, and love. The three references to the Divine will are significant in this connection: first, we have 'the good pleasure of His will' which, however, does not imply anything arbitrary (Eph. i. 5); then comes 'the mystery of His will,' a fact of which we are perfectly aware (Eph. i. 9); but last of all we read of 'the counsel of His own will' (Eph. i. i i), and we are sure that God does nothing without due consideration, and, as it were, taking counsel with Himself. The Calvinistic view is doubtless open to the serious objection that it tends to make God's righteousness conflict with His love, by asserting the Divine sovereignty in too unqualified a way. But, as it has been pointed out, there is no need of this conflict if we recall the fact that election in Scripture is intended, not for exclusion, but for wider blessing to others. God's choice of Abraham and other similar men in Old Testament times was for the purpose of making them spiritual blessings to others, and when this is realised in connection both with Israel and Christ we see that election does not mean exclusion, but inclusion as the means of worldwide blessing." [p.248f; notice this election is primarily an election to service, and blessings to others.]



"In conclusion, we must, as Dr. Orr says, dismiss entirely all thought of arbitrariness and keep the Divine purpose in the closest possible connection with the history by means of which it is realized." (p.250)



"It [predestination] is associated with God's foreknowledge (Rom viii.28; 1 Pet. 1.2.). Foreknowledge is something between foresight and foreordination, knowledge with favor." (p.251)



"So we may say: (a) God elects to save; (b) God elects to save in one way (in Christ); (c) God elects to save one class (believers)." (p.251)



"The one thing to remember is that there is no favoritism with God and no injustice, nor is there any interference with the freedom of man or the universality of the offer of the Gospel to human faith." (p.252)



"A careful consideration of these passages seems to show that, while God made a selection of men to form His church, yet the members of this collective body are not the only ones who are in some sense saved." (p.256; note: election is partial, for service)





But even this statement is probably a little too 'Calvinistic' for Anglicanism in general:



"Like Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism is, historically, a liturgical religious tradition, meaning that great emphasis is placed on observing a formal devotional regimen--the celebration of saints' days and other holy days, the performance of elaborate, dramatic ceremonies, the conduct of worship by reciting set prayers--all accompanied by sublime organ music and choral singing and led by priests wearing vestments. And, like Roman Catholics, Anglicans have always favored elegantly constructed churches with ornately decorated interiors. The purpose of all this outward show is to instill those attending worship with a sense of awe and piety. Finally, like Roman Catholics, most (if not all) Anglicans reject Calvinism, with its emphasis on predestination and conversion, and the evangelical ethos often associated with that theology. Anglicans instead stress the capacity of humankind, enlightened by reason, to earn salvation by leading upright, moral lives. " [Christine Leigh Heyrman, Department of History, University of Delaware, "The Church of England in Early America".]





So, although will undoubtedly be some 'Calvinists' in Anglicanism, they will be an minority. And, as we saw immediately above, the Calvinist view doesn't end up actually espousing an 'arbitrary election' view after all"
**Completely plgiarized from an internet site ** I'm the plagiarist, not them
Draugnar (0 DX)
20 Jan 10 UTC
@zrallo - don't feel bad. I've heard many a time how we Lutherans follow Luther and not Christ, when one of his primary points of contention was that people should read and pray for themselves, receiving guidance and spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit sent to us by Christ at the Ascension. We don't worship Luther any more thna you worship Calvin or the Catholics worship Mary. It's just grasping at straws that some of the younger denominations use to try and seperate themselves from us.
Ursa (1617 D)
20 Jan 10 UTC
I don't think any Lutheran of Calvinistic reference for either Luther or Calvin is comparable to the Maria Devotion. I am not calling the latter wrong, but the protestant denominations insist on refering no human being - except Jesus Christ ofcourse.


@ baumheuer:

re: Lord's Supper (thanks for the term :-)): I always learned that while the Catholic Church preaches that bread and wine actually ARE Jesus Christ (not being transformed to meat and blood but differently - even to Catholics that's a mystery) Luther learned a partial presence of God. Calvin dropped the whole literacy and learned bread and wine were symbols of Jesus' flesh and blood.

re: predesination: I don't think Gomarism fits Calvinism wholly, at least not according to the gentlemen at Dordt. At first I was surprised by this, because Gomarus does have his 'popularity' in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. For instance, I attended the 'Gomarus college'. While Gomarus says man has no influence whatsoever, Dordt agreed to the paradox of 100% God's work and 100% man's work. This to prevent that God would be guilty of damning those who refused to follow Him: men do have a choice. But when they choose for God they do so through the Holy Spirit. At least, that's what I learned.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Interesting.

@Ursa:
Well, the paper was about Calvinism, not Gomarism. Thanks, though.
What is the scriptural basis for 100% responsibility for both God and man? And does that hold to all five points?

@Crazy Anglican:
So it seems the Anglican position is that man is saved by getting so much grace that he chooses God on his own, and by works. Right?
Ursa (1617 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Haven't got time to really dive into the matter, perhaps soon. :)
@ baumhaeuer That's a fair assessment I'd guess. I've put it this way before. Say that you're in a burning building and somone reaches in to pull you out (that's God's grace). You would still have the choice of whether to take the hand or not (that's man's free will). If God has done everything possible to give you salvation without crossing the point that would take away your free-will, that's pretty much indicating that He want's us to choose Him, but will not make us automatons in the attempt.

There is the idea that God know's everything and therefore knows that some people will be destined to reject him. That doesn't necessarily mean that he made them that way (once you are born then you are in charge as to you choices), nor does it mean that he desires anyone to do so. It's merely a byproduct of allowing the human race that choice.
** as to your choices**
baumhaeuer (245 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
@Crazy Anglican:
that is, as far as I have investigated, how arminianism (meaning the salvific scheme in most protestant denominations) works. Man makes the choice for God. Ultimately, it is man who chooses to go to God through some inherent goodness on his own part.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
Interesting.
Ursa: Calvinist
CA: Arminian
Baumhaeuer: Lutheran

@Ursa, the LS:
I suspect you learned from people who were not Lutherans. Being one, and one who takes the Bible seriously, as opposed to some other "Lutheran" groups, I think I'm a bit better source: the body and blood of our Lord are present completely, not "half-ly."
What I found interesting was my realization that double-predestination excludes the possibility of the real presence.

Predestination: Does the 100%-100% involve "common grace?"


35 replies
jimgov (219 D(B))
23 Jan 10 UTC
new 5 minute gunboat
30 D, wta, anon starts in 30 gameID=19745
67 replies
Open
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Come and join For Fun! a great new Global Variant game!
This is a cheap 5pt game for anyone who wants to try out the new global variant game. I sat an account with one of these games and it was awesome! The join time is 5 days but that is just to allow you enough time to tell all of your friends to come and play! Hurry and join while there is still time!

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19701
6 replies
Open
moses (124 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
lets play a live game
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19762
join it
it starts soon
5 replies
Open
gordonpup (697 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
World Variation Game
Has anyone played a game of the world variation of diplomacy yet?
3 replies
Open
Maestro (0 DX)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Take a Bow. My first game
Please join, this is my first game. The join in is 100 D
29 replies
Open
general (100 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
Suspicious
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19399

Have a look at the Autumn 1903, but, the supports by two of the souther neighbors are highly suspicious in an ANON game.
5 replies
Open
Conservative Man (100 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
Does anyone want to join my game?
Here is the I.D: gameID=19756
Please join. You know you want to.
0 replies
Open
Fin (100 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
When do I get to sleep again?
New to webdiplomacy-- thanks for a great site. One problem....
12 replies
Open
Carpysmind (1423 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
World Wide Game Movement Question
If . . .

Kenya; Moz>Sou A, Tanz>Zam
South Afr; Zam>Moz, Sou A sup Zam>Moz
2 replies
Open
Conservative Man (100 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
Who wants to join my game?
Here is the Game I.D:gameID=19743
Please join; It'll be a good time for all.
1 reply
Open
superman98 (118 D)
23 Jan 10 UTC
New Live Game!!!!!- Anon WTA!!!!
Here is a new Live Game! Anon players, Winner Takes All, 10 D to join. 5 min. phases, and it is set to start at 7:50p.m. E.T. Come join!!!
gameID=19744
0 replies
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
22 Jan 10 UTC
New 1 day gunboat
40 D, anon, ppsc, gunboat gameID=19681
2 more, starts at 9:45 EST
1 reply
Open
StevenC. (1047 D(B))
21 Jan 10 UTC
Need a Sitter now!
Who's willing to do it??
24 replies
Open
Jack123 (116 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
QUICK WORLD VARIANT SPEED ROUND!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19741
0 replies
Open
Mickie (394 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Live game in 20 minutes!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19737
3 replies
Open
Troodonte (3379 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
I can't send ingame messages with chrome
..... but I can with IE...anyone knows why?
5 replies
Open
danicovisky (100 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
It was a bug or I that don't know the rules?
Hello!
In my game I was France and i made a move (in convoy - with a fleet on mid atlantic sea) from Brest to Belgium and i gave support to move from Picardy (with a fleet) and Burgundy (with an army). Germany hold his position on Belgium and gave support to hold from holland (with an army). Why couldn't I took the Belgium?
16 replies
Open
Danny (100 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
new game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19733
12 hour phases
Game name = wallander
0 replies
Open
johnfoxarmy (100 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
Live game JOIN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19731
4 replies
Open
mel1980 (0 DX)
22 Jan 10 UTC
New game- for those Sydneysiders...
who sweltered thru last night and want to stay indoors on todays 41 degree day!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19728
1 reply
Open
checkmate (0 DX)
22 Jan 10 UTC
world map exceptions
someone can tell me please if an army can move demark-scandinavia in the world map?
5 replies
Open
dave bishop (4694 D)
22 Jan 10 UTC
LIVE game!!!
gameID=19717

one more
2 replies
Open
Page 477 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top