Spirituality on a Chess Site?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats an odd use of the word 'prove'. It doesn't seem like he proved anything, but rather convinced some people that the traditions they were following did not necessarily come from the source they thought they did, or that there were other different traditions in the past. He used their poorly placed faith in tradition to achieve his goal.

I too disag ...[text shortened]... f people using religion as a means to conquer / subdue / or otherwise gain power over others.

==================================
Thats an odd use of the word 'prove'. It doesn't seem like he proved anything, but rather convinced some people that the traditions they were following did not necessarily come from the source they thought they did, or that there were other different traditions in the past. He used their poorly placed faith in tradition to achieve his goal.
==============================================

I think your objection to 'prove' is minor. I'm not sure what your extracting of the word 'prove' is suppose to do for you.

And I agree with the manner in which you prefer to express what happened.

=============================================
I too disagree with sonhouse about the motivations of missionaries, at a minimum he made a sweeping generalization about a very diverse group of people. But I also believe that you are incorrect to attribute all acts of compassion by Christians to their religion.
============================================

I made the same kind of generalization that he made. The only difference was that I fairly gave a heads up by adding "at least under the banner of [Christian Gospel]"

In that way I left it open to argument that though some people acted comapssionately under a Christian banner they themselves may or may not have actually been Christians.

At least they want to identify with the Christian brand so to speak. And that is exactly the case also with sonhouse's generalization.

In other words we can generalize on the other side just as easily as sonhouse can. Because I included the caveat that I did, I think that my generalization was more objectively fair.

Of course all subjugation of people's in far away lands under a Christian banner was not necessarily carried out by actual Christians.

Of course not all compassionate acts of charity under a Christian banner were nececssarily carried out by actual Christians

For the Atheist yourself, such imposters will only melt peacefully into dust.

For the Christian, such imposters will stand before God in the last Judgement and receive recompense for what they have done.

=========================================
There is precious little evidence that Christians are in general more compassionate than atheists leading me to believe that compassion has more to do with human nature than religion.
============================================

There may be precisely little evidence for the existence of a diamond on a beach of sands and pebbles. That does not reduce the value of the diamond.

The Bible says that the world and its lust is passing away, but he that does the will of God abides forever.

Even if there were only two or three genuine Christ expressing Christians in the last two thousand years, that does not reduce their eternal worth.

As it stands, in spite of your presumed statistics on the matter, I believe Christ was right to call His disciples "the salt of the earth" implying not that they totally cure the world of her ills, but at least keep it from degrading into complete corruption. That is as salt preserves food from rotteness.

At any rate while you stand on the side lines and collect statistics for you tables, some of us have decided to become disciples of Jesus purely on the value of the truth of His person and teachings.

You collect your statistics. We'll live for Jesus.

====================================
I also think that there have been cases of people using religion as a means to conquer / subdue / or otherwise gain power over others.

===============================

That is a statement not on the truth or untruth of the Gospel but on the depravity of men who lay hold of the most beautiful and true to perform selfishness.

Count the key strokes

=====

=======

=====

Originally posted by sonhouse
Actually, christians are COMPELLED to spread the 'faith'. It's a compulsion inculcated by thousands of years of delusions carefully calculated by a few upper placed leaders to control large numbers of humans and subjugate subject peoples in distant lands. Islam has taken this great lesson from christianity. You should both be collectively proud.

You sound so confident and authoritative...

What evidence do you have, precisely, to support your claim that the Christian faith in particular is a delusion?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Count the key strokes

=====

=======

=====

I count 17. What does everyone else get?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You sound so confident and authoritative...

What evidence do you have, precisely, to support your claim that the Christian faith in particular is a delusion?

While waiting for our friend sonhouse to reply, let's take it all the way down epi dude!

I am indifferent to the Bible, and you in person believe that I am invaded by the spirit of the Antichrist! On the other hand, this miserable atheist in front of you is dead sure that every human being can be decent, full of Love, with a heart full of Compassion and a spirit full of deep respect for Life. One can gain in full all these virtues allright -with or without the "good book", regardless if he is "truly born by God Christian" or not, regardless of his religion. But you disagree over here because you follow blindly a theological thesis that has not the slightest philosophical value. If you are able to comment insted of preaching, I would like you to express your opinion;

Now regarding the delusion itself: once upon a time the human beings we were animists, then polytheists, then came along the "Chosen" with their "God", and from there ...here we are today with the three Abrahamic religions.
The Abrahamic doctrine behind the religionist activism is simple and horrible: I am born guilty and therefore I have to be saved; I am racist and discriminative; the women and the infidels are lesser species, the gays are worthless; whatever I cannot explain is an "act of God"; whatever I want to achieve I try to achieve it by pursuing everybody else to be "saved" and become a "truly born by God Christian" "in the name of the God" (My "God", to be frank. And oh how nice, the "chosen" of that "God" are considered "infidels" by the "true believers" of another "God", and together they all end up down the drain killing each other).

BTW every religion, the Abrahamic ones included, has countless denominations whilst every religionist claims that solely his lot is in touch with the "real God". You may understand that for every rational person this approach is BS big time -and what a delusion too;
🙂

Originally posted by whodey
I count 17. What does everyone else get?

Haiku?

Originally posted by patrickrutgers
I think it would be interesting to hear views on the apparent assumption made by the designers of this site that chess players would have an interest in discussing religious matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/

http://www.amazon.com/Belief-God-Science-John-Polkinghorne/dp/0300099495