Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
From	Message
bobspringett 18-Aug-21, 00:16	Riaan 23:33 Well said, Riaan! Now you know why I continue to hammer the three most important aspects in understanding the Bible. They are Context, Context and Context. It sounds like a poor joke, but it is to remind students of 1. Literary Context, within the passage in particular and the Book as a whole. 2. Historical Context, of who was writing to whom, when, and about what. 3. Cultural Context, of what those words would mean to the writer and his readers at the time. Just a quick example:- Imagine you are in Athens in 50 A.D. (just before Saint Paul turned up) and ask a passer-by "Have you heard about the Son of God, who has saved the world?" He would almost certainly answer "Yes! What rock have you been living under?" Because EVERYONE would know about Augustus, the son of the Divine Julius Caesar, who brought peace to the world by putting an end to sixty years of one civil war after another (90 B.C. to 30 B.C.). Does this tell you something about the claim by Christians that Jesus Christ was 'Son of God, who saves the world'? Or the Roman soldier (yes, ROMAN soldier) saying at the Crucifixion "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Can you see how Christians would inevitably be seen as a seditious sect? Context is everything.
riaannieman 18-Aug-21, 03:26	stalhandske, I don't have an example at hand. The point my friend made was that any person can say something innocuous at any time, and what they say can be quoted in such a way, and in such a context, that it sounds true but really is not. Or it is the opposite of what they want to express. I hope this explanation make sense.
bobspringett 18-Aug-21, 04:20	Stal Let me give an example of what Riaan was driving at.... This is the speech of Marc Anthony at Caesar's funeral. If I provide no more than the quote 'Brutus is an honourable man', then it would appear that Anthony approves of Brutus. Now read the line in the context of the whole speech... Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; 75 I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. 76 The evil that men do lives after them; 77 The good is oft interred with their bones; 78 So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus 79 Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: 80 If it were so, it was a grievous fault, 81 And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. 82 Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest— 83 For Brutus is an honourable man; 84 So are they all, all honourable men— 85 Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. 86 He was my friend, faithful and just to me: 87 But Brutus says he was ambitious; 88 And Brutus is an honourable man. 89 He hath brought many captives home to Rome 90 Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: 91 Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? 92 When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: 93 Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: 94 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; 95 And Brutus is an honourable man. 96 You all did see that on the Lupercal 97 I thrice presented him a kingly crown, 98 Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? 99 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; 100 And, sure, he is an honourable man. 101 I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, 102 But here I am to speak what I do know. 103 You all did love him once, not without cause: 104 What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? 105 O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, 106 And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; 107 My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, 108 And I must pause till it come back to me.
stalhandske 18-Aug-21, 04:46	Riaan and Bob OK, I get it. Thanks!
stalhandske 20-Aug-21, 21:21	The latest Flux idiocy Flux now posts two short videos as proof against Darwinian evolution theory. The first is the simple opinion of a young biologist that the information in a living organism could not have evolved by chance. Although no citation of the 2nd Law is given here, it sounds like the creationists' misconception that order cannot arise out of disorder. Which is simply false. The second slightly longer video 'calculates' the statistical chance of forming the 3D structure of even a relatively small protein (like an enzyme, for example, necessary for catalysing chemical or physical reactions). This is (again) an old creationists' argument that has been debunked a long time ago. It is odd (or is it?) that Flux - who knows his Bible so well - doesn't seem to know that these issues have been shown to be false long ago. ncse.ngo
bobspringett 20-Aug-21, 21:52	Stal 21:21 <It is odd (or is it?) that Flux - who knows his Bible so well -> Does he? He probably can recite quite a few verses from memory (in an archaic translation) but that is little more than teaching English kids how to sing the Marseillaise in French. They know the sounds, but not the meaning. More accurate to say that he knows the text of selected sections of the Bible well, but doesn't understand their meaning. His boast that he has hand-transcribed 70% of it shows that his time is spent in copying, not understanding. Even what understanding he has seems to be in copying what his preferred sources have told him, rather than it soaking down into genuine comprehension. As I tell students, "Doctrine is taught, Theology is thought."
stalhandske 20-Aug-21, 22:22	Bob 21:52 <More accurate to say that he knows the text of selected sections of the Bible well, but doesn't understand their meaning.> OK, but that is far beyond my competence. I have just 'admired' his constant quotes from different parts of both the Old and the New Testament.
stalhandske 20-Aug-21, 22:31	Flux now retorts to his old ways. He completely neglects the objections to his claims, which he immediately says aren't his but someone else's that he just quotes. That way, he is never responsible for what he posts. This is not close to, but precisely, ridiculous! Fortunately, I haven't seen a single person following this insane thinking. My prediction (based on earlier experience) is that in some time not far from now, he will disappear once again from the GK horizon. Possibly again accompanied by a flurry of formal complaints like last time. Only to appear later on - in a new shape
bobspringett 20-Aug-21, 22:41	Stal Everyone knows that he is repeating garbage, even after it is shown to be garbage. His demand that Evolution be 'proved' means 'proved to his satisfaction'. Sorta like a criminal demanding that his guilt be proven to his own satisfaction. OF COURSE HE WILL NEVER ADMIT TO BEING SATISFIED!! Anything that 'proves' he is wrong is 'fake proof'. By definition. Therefore he is justified in ignoring it. In Evolution/Creation, in pre/post/a-millennialism, in 'Science in the Bible', it's all the same. Any evidence against what he already 'knows' to be true must therefore be false. Life is simple if you want it to be!
stalhandske 20-Aug-21, 23:24	Flux's latest < But because they’re not legitimate scientists and are emotionally and ideologically invested in Darwin’s horse poop, they’ll defend it to their dying day! > Not legitimate scientists? This is getting to be almost funny. Flux sounds more and more like the diarrhea it refers to (instead of horse poop, by which I think he means bullshit  ).
riaannieman 20-Aug-21, 23:43	@Stalhandske It is not worth it to get agitated over such [horse poop]. In Fiat Lux we have had several real scientists over the years, from many disciplines, including yourself who is probably the best in your field in the last 100 years. Besides that we also have some real intellectual giants here, and off course a mediocre would-be scholar like myself who is inquisitive, objective, and although not a scientist, understands enough to grasp the concepts put forward by the great minds, like yourself. I don't support evolution theory to be a rebel, contradictory, aggravate people who believe the Bible or any such reason. I believe this theory based on evidence considered both ways: the creationist point of view put forward by a (probably much misunderstood) document written roughly 2 000 years ago, versus modern scientific evidence which can be tested over and over with consistent results. This includes, but is not limited to, dating techniques, biological research, fossil evidence, and not the least of them all, the ability to apply independent and critical thinking in the face of evidence presented in various ways.
stalhandske 21-Aug-21, 00:10	<<<<It is odd (or is it?) that Flux - who knows his Bible so well - doesn't seem to know that these issues have been shown to be false long ago.>> <Prove it, Blowhard! Prove what you claim has been debunked has actually been debunked. > I did, of course, but as usual it was ignored
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 00:49	Riaan 23:43 Riaan, you have put your finger exactly on why I bother with this debate. <the creationist point of view put forward by a (probably much misunderstood) document written roughly 2 000 years ago> My point is that the 'Creationist' point of view is NOT put forward in a document written 2,000 years ago. NO scientific theory was put forward in that 2,000-year-old document, because that document was not intended to promote a scientific theory. Instead, it used the common thinking of its times purely as a backdrop, an illustrative context, to convey insights about God, humans and the rest of the universe. Had the Bible described 'Creation' in any other terms, the people of the times would not have understood what it was saying. Let me emphasise that no modern scientific discoveries will 'prove the Bible wrong'. They might well prove wrong the world-view common when the Bible was written, but so what? We have already proved wrong the world-view common when America was discovered, that that doesn't mean that America ceased to exist. Or the world-view when calculus was invented, but calculus is still a valid branch of mathematics. I have no doubt that much of the most advanced science we have today will one day become obsolete; does that mean that the virtues we believe in today, ideals such as justice, mercy, benevolence, altruism, peace, will all be 'proved wrong' because the stories we use to illustrate these virtues will one day be considered obsolete? The message is simple; don't mistake the teaching itself for the illustrations used to explain it. THAT is why I have been arguing with Coram; because his approach concentrates on the shape of the letters used to write the text, not the meaning of the text itself. In so doing, he has distracted everyone else from the MEANING.
archduke_piccolo 21-Aug-21, 01:05	A question here... I have been following this more or less for some time. It has been a bit like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Now, stalhandske, your ... erm ... interlocutor has demanded that you prove your point. You say you have. Very well. Now, has he attempted to refute - the whole or point by point - the arguments you have presented? Or, has he - (a) simply descended into 'ad hominem' and/or (b) merely indulged in 'parallel talking' - that is to say, continued to present his own case (insofar as he has a case) without addressing your own? It seems to me that if he is genuinely engaging in a debate, addressing the points you present in the same way (I infer) that you address his specific points, then perhaps some value may be got from the exchange of ideas. Even though he might not be persuaded to a different point of view - one persuaded against his will, is of the same opinion still - the exercise might at least keep one's own thinking sharp and limber. If he isn't, then I wonder whether it is worth anyone's while continuing to engage. We know he's descended to 'ad hominem' - the expression 'blowhard' is a bit of a dead giveaway there. I would have called him directly on it, and suggested if that is the direction he wants to take the issue, then perhaps he hasn't much of a case. Personally I am far less interested in a debate upon the Bible's value in explaining cosmological origins, than I am concerning its place as historiography. I form the impression that its historiographical role in relating the history of the Levant is much undervalued.
stalhandske 21-Aug-21, 01:10	<If he isn't, then I wonder whether it is worth anyone's while continuing to engage.> It isn't worth it, and I am wondering myself why I continue to respond to his garbage.
riaannieman 21-Aug-21, 01:13	@bobspringett Thank you Sir! It is my experience that most readers of the Bible have the same point of view, and only some individuals cling to the arguments put forward by Flux. It is probably more accurate to rephrase my statement as follows: The literal interpretation by some creationists, of a (probably much misunderstood) document written roughly 2 000 years ago, which interpretation seems to deliberately misinterpret said document as a true scientific document and willfully ignore modern scientific theory, evidence and techniques, can be perceived as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the true set of facts and belittle true scientific disciplines to the point of being described as cultist at best, or stupidity at worst. (Or the other way around, depending on your own experience with both.) But overall I agree with your post- it is my experience that most true and deeply religious Christians entertain evolution theory and accept the distinct possibility of it, instead of stoically pushing the agenda that the earth and all upon it is no older than 8 000 or so.
riaannieman 21-Aug-21, 01:45	@stalhandske You do not need to continue with such a pointless debate. As the acknowledged leader in your field, you surely have enough knowledge into fields closely related in microbiology*, that just based on such knowledge you know the truth about evolution. And that is just microbiology- you also have solid knowledge in other fields that investigate the theory of evolution. I desist arguments with fools who willfully ignore rational thought. Some people just cannot entertain any thought outside their own narrow narrative. *I am thinking, for example, about research and study of DNA. I also think about other biological structures, such as the development of vision and eventually eyes, or the development of the brain, from a loose collection neurons..... As Richard Dawkins explains in his book 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.
brigadecommander 21-Aug-21, 03:21	Bob I have a few questions. You write ''Instead, it used the common thinking of its times purely as a backdrop, an illustrative context, to convey insights about God, humans and the rest of the universe. Had the Bible described 'Creation' in any other terms, the people of the times would not have understood what it was saying.''. You make it sound like someone living then understood the real truth, but decided to simplify it. So my question is who made the conscious decision to speak in layman's terms at that period in History? The scribes who wrote the Bible? God? I mean no disrespect with these questions. Just curious.
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 05:07	Athena 03:21 Good question! No, I don't think someone back then knew the 'real truth' about science. I don't go in for any 'magical' understanding of inspiration. I think the writers were men (sadly, what women thought wasn't considered worth writing down!) who had some insight into the nature of God, humans and how a 'good' society should operate. They then tried to communicate these insights to their contemporaries. To do that, they had to use concepts understood by their contemporaries. Most of the Old Testament as we have it now probably isn't as it was originally written. There is plenty of evidence that much of it was edited and re-compiled during the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century B.C., and this process further refined the writings. What we were left with could reasonably be considered the distilled essence of a long tradition, with different parts discernible, and each part making use of ideas current at the time of the original writing as well as some ideas imported during the later compilation process. But those background ideas are not what the Bible is about. It is about God, humans and relationships, and used the circumstances at the time of writing to explain those insights. Just like if two children are squabbling over a bar of chocolate, a mother might break it in half to teach the kids about 'sharing'. But that doesn't mean 'sharing' means no more than breaking chocolate bars in half, and if there are no chocolate bars available then there is no need to share. Chocolate isn't the core of the concept, only an example by which it is illustrated.
brigadecommander 21-Aug-21, 05:36	Bob Good explanation. Thank you.
brigadecommander 21-Aug-21, 06:54	another question. But this one you don't have to answer if you don't want too. If it were asked of me I don't think I could answer it, not yet anyway... The problem is 'words'. None really explain ones inner feelings or answer any questions.. Words like 'Universe or God, or Heaven and Hell. Or Love. So my Question is 'Who or what is your God' ?. Or more precisely, down deep, what is it that you believe or hope for?. Such things may not always be explained by Science nor Religion. Walking a path between Hope and perceived Reality is no easy task. One could fall into despair one moment, and then collapse into complete delusion the next. As an Astronomer i do know one thing. The Cosmos is vast beyond comprehension. So therefor the Possibilities are also. Simple Math.
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 15:18	Athena 06:54 That's not far short of the Ultimate Question. I'll answer by P.M. If anyone else wants to see the answer, I'll copy it to him/her on request.
stalhandske 21-Aug-21, 21:04	Bob 15:18 I think it would be of great interest for all Club Members to familiarise themselves with your answer to that important question. Please, do post it here.
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 21:34	Stal 21:04 You asked for it, Stal! Just imagine how our mutual friend Coram will react! It's not what he was taught at Sunday School... Hi Athena, You asked “So my question is ‘Who or what is your God?’ Or more precisely ‘What is it deep down that you believe or hope for?’” The short answer is ‘I don’t know.’ Or more precisely, ‘I’m still finding out.’ Everything I can conceive of is an infant’s stick-figure sketch of the Truth. All my theology is just a first approximation. All my dreams, hopes and yearnings are a feeble grope into Immensity. By-the-way, I’ll use the masculine pronoun, not because God is male but because this pronoun when properly used is not exclusively male but includes the feminine and indeterminate. It is the default pronoun for anyone of unknown gender, such as ‘let him who is without sin…’ or ‘every man for himself’. But reporting on my current position…. God is transcendent. He is not only infinitely above us, He is infinitely above anything we conceive. Anselm tried to prove the existence of God with his ‘ontological argument’, but his argument falls laughably short. God is beyond even ontology. God is immanent. He is not only in all space and all time, but is everywhere and everywhen in a simultaneous instant. God is sovereign. That means that God’s hand cannot be forced, he is under no obligation to anyone except himself. One famous dictum is ‘anyone who would make a contract with God will find his own signature on both sides of the page.’ His purposes are his own, and nothing can thwart them. When someone asks ‘why is there evil in the world’, there is an implicit assumption that God is under some sort of duty to reduce or eliminate evil. But he is not. The Creation is not about the Creation itself, but about the Creator. We need to remember our place! The question would be more fruitful if it were ‘What purpose does this evil serve?’ So far, so very-stern-Calvinist! But that is not all. God is Love. A love so vast it becomes incomprehensible. Not a syrupy, emotional love, but one that does the hard yards for the benefit of someone else. A love that allows it to be flogged to exhaustion and then forced to drag a cross-beam up a hill for the final torture and humiliation. Crucifixion wasn’t just about pain. It was mostly about humiliation. Here is someone, naked to the world (forget the little loincloth shown on crucifixes today), who knows he will die but still finds himself struggling for one… more… breath. He is forced by his own body to make the disgrace last even longer! He can’t even die by his own choice! And as the exhaustion sets in, the uncontrolled urination and defecation… In my book, Pope Barnabas has a vision in which God says, “Peter, you know I love you.” “Yes, I know that.” “Then know that My love is a ruthless love. It has done whatever it had to, to fashion you for your mission. Already I have struck you down, time and again. You have felt my Hammer, and you know it. Now I ask that you kiss it.” “Father, I know Your love! And I kiss Your hammer! But please, if this must be done, then show me Your mercy in the doing! At least, walk beside me as I go!” “I have already made you a man after My own heart, Peter, but I must complete the work. I must now make you a man in My own image. I gave no comfort on Calvary and I will give no comfort today. A little while and you will see Me no more. But even though you will not see Me, I have promised I will never leave you. Will you trust Me, even as you search for Me but can’t find Me?” “Whom have I in heaven but You? And on Earth I desire nothing beside You,” Barnabas quoted the psalm as his answer. We were made to be in the Image of God. That means, to show the characteristics of God, even if scaled down a bit. As God is in control over Creation, so we are called to ‘be in control’. That is why slavery is so evil; it denies the slave his/her control over his/her own body. It is also why altruism is admired. Every human knows, deep down, that such behaviour is how humans should relate to each other. It is in the image of God. Well, that’s God dealt with, in just over a page. Now, “What do I hope for?” I hope that one day I will know what I hope for. I know it won’t be drifting around on a cloud, playing a harp. That’s just not ME! I know nothing about music! Nor will it be in some fresh-air village tilling the soil, with God peeking over the mountains at me. That might be shown on Jehovah’s Witness literature, but it is so kitsch! Everything I could imagine is just a child’s imagination. But at present my best guess is formed by St. Paul’s ‘Christ Mysticism’ and Karl Barth’s Christology. If you care to, read the first 14 verses of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Notice the number of times he says ‘IN Christ’ rather that ‘with’ or ‘through’ or ‘by’. Then 1 Corinthians 12:12 – 27 for his extended ‘body’ metaphor. To Paul, John’s metaphor of Christ being the vine and we the branches is not just a metaphor; it is a hidden reality. It is almost as though (to use a modern parallel) we are all self-conscious cells in a greater body. Then we have Barth, a ‘traditional’ Protestant with a radically new view. In contrast with Calvin, who asserted God’s ‘eternal decree’ that some would be saved and others wouldn’t, Barth asserted that ONLY CHRIST is saved. And that Christ is the locus of all humanity. In Christ, all humanity is ‘God’s elect’. Barth was rather coy when asked if this meant ‘every individual’. He implied that concepts such as ‘individual’ as we speak today would not be a meaningful, but he denied ‘universalism’ as it was currently conceived. There is also a practical question. If this little Bobby is saved, WHICH Bobby is saved? The smart-arse teenager who knew all the answers? The guy in his twenties, married and making a career? The guy in his thirties, with two kids and trying to start up his own business, up to his neck in politics and absolutely frazzled from the overload? Perhaps in his forties, with his business expanding, but needing to plough all profits back into more equipment and staff? Or the guy in his sixties, his business having imploded during a recession, now bankrupt, clinically depressed and marginally suicidal? Or Bobby now, with a stuffed heart muscle and still emotionally fragile despite no longer being classified as ‘depressed’. My answer is ALL of those Bobbys are included in salvation, which is another word for becoming a fully-integrated person over a lifetime experienced sequentially; as well as being part of a Humanity in Christ that is now integrated after being initially experienced individually. Perhaps that last paragraph might give some context for my position on sexism and racism. But I’m still working. No-where near finished yet!
stalhandske 21-Aug-21, 21:44	Bob 21:34 Thank you for this interesting explanation! I note that your 'belief system' is highly self-critical and probing for new information, new impressions, new feelings. In some sense it is reminiscent of the way most scientists think (although many of them do not believe in God). I have only one additional question: Do you in your mind consider the possibility that He does not exist?
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 21:59	Stal 21:44 <Do you in your mind consider the possibility that He does not exist?> Been through that stage! My conclusion is that if 'He' didn't 'exist', it is because 'He' is outside and transcendent over 'existence' as we know it. See my words in the above post.... "He is infinitely above anything we conceive. Anselm tried to prove the existence of God with his ‘ontological argument’, but his argument falls laughably short. God is beyond even ontology." I believe we touched on this in a thread perhaps a year ago, speaking of 'Ultimate First Cause', etc..
stalhandske 21-Aug-21, 22:06	Bob 21:59 Right! The point I was aiming at is that if/since it is impossible to define God (which is as I read your writing), it seems very difficult to me to believe. I mean, you'd then believe in something you don't know what it is. Of course, as soon as you define God, then belief in 'him' becomes rational. Or, do I misunderstand?
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 23:10	Stal 22:06 <Of course, as soon as you define God, then belief in 'him' becomes rational.> (This is where you will start to lose patience with me.) This is the fundamental epistemological flaw in fundamentalism; they assume that God is small enough to fit inside their own understanding. I suspect it is a reaction to modern Science. Classical 'Science' as preached in the late 19th and early 20th century claimed to be able to understand everything, at least in principle. So some Christians responded by trying to make the Christian Faith equally methodical, certain and systematised. I have said before that fundamentalists think they are fighting 'science', but in fact they are science's greatest trophies. They even read their own Scriptures as if scientists! I'll be blunt. If it can be understood, then it isn't God. At best, it is a fleeting glimpse of one aspect. Even St. Paul said "At present we see through a mirror in a riddle, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know completely." Such a pity that fundamentalists have reduced Paul to a series of slogans. I see him as the first 'modern' thinker, or at least the first who saw his own culture as offering merely one possible perspective out of many. (If anyone wants to discuss Paul's alleged 'misogyny', I'm happy to defend him against that charge.)
stalhandske 21-Aug-21, 23:17	Bob 32:10 No, I don't lose patience   I understand what you are saying. I just find it remarkable that one can have a belief, a faith, in something one doesn't know what it is. If I would dare a counter argument, I would say that humans have a tendency to believe in 'a higher force' in their wish to have an explanation for it all. Apparently, it is not satisfactory to the majority of us to just admit that we don't know what the origins of everything is; we somehow need to give it a 'face' and a 'reason'.
bobspringett 21-Aug-21, 23:26	Stal 23:17 <I understand what you are saying.> That's comforting, because I don't. I only have hints, whispers, flashes, and I know I'll still be puzzling over it when I die. I think I have barely enough to guess which direction to take.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.