chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

Big Pawn
Member since Dec-10-05 · Last seen Jan-20-18
Philosophical Thought of the Week:

There is almost nothing worse than a "strong" willed woman.

>> Click here to see big pawn's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   Big Pawn has kibitzed 17593 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jan-19-18 Big Pawn chessforum
 
Big Pawn: William Lane Craig on 8 arguments for theism. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri... This is a great article! He summarized 8 different arguments for Godís existence. Itís written so well, so perfectly. It covers the moral argument (stated a little differently than usual) and it ...
 
   Jan-19-18 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
 
Big Pawn: <Jan-19-18 Premium Chessgames Member Bobsterman3000: CNN poll - 56% say DACA not worth a shutdown. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/polit... Wow, 56% of brainwashed cucks do not support shutting down the govt for DACA! That means that 95% of the regular folks donít want to ...
 
   Jan-19-18 Tata Steel (2018) (replies)
 
Big Pawn: How come the table shows some players at 7 games and the rest at 6?
 
   Jan-19-18 Kibitzer's Café (replies)
 
Big Pawn: <op: It means that the author of Kings wasn't interested in re-writing history. There was this "annals of the kings" for that! He was instead interested in drawing theological insights from the various kings of Israel and Judah.> Right, but just because it was not his ...
 
   Jan-19-18 cormier chessforum (replies)
 
Big Pawn: Interesting posts, <Cormier>. A lot of people might think it's rather circular to argue for God's existence from the bible, but they don't realize that the bible was written over centuries by different people and pieced together.
 
   Jan-16-18 G W Medley vs Morphy, 1858 (replies)
 
Big Pawn: <capafisher1>, if 19.Bxa8 Rxa8 20.Qg2 then black would have to retreat his queen in order to keep attaching chances alive and hope to exploit the white squares around the white king. I could be afraid of ghosts, but I don't like to trade my fianchetto bishop for a rook when ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Elite Posters Cafe

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 98 OF 98 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <The biggest problem western society has today is political correctness, which is liberalism. Trump is the hammer that is smashing this evil, oppressive fortress and this is greater than any one policy he can implement as president.>

I think the biggest problem is a corrupt banking system, second biggest is Islamic terrorism.

I never really considered political correctness to be a big problem until recently. But it has become pervasive, giving your provocative statement its merit.

Arguing with <Bureaucrat> the last couple of days has been an eye-opener. In all serious, not trying to be snide or cute, but talking to him was like going into a bizarro world.

He claimed he wasn't at all emotional and protested that I stop the psychoanalysis, but he cried about every accurate description of his behavior. You can't say this, you can't say that.

He even said he didn't need an argument to justify his views (as you know), and he doesn't even realize that labeling people "racists" is a debate tactic to disenfranchise ideas! That is the classic definition of a useful idiot, as far as I'm concerned. He is part of the self-censoring group think and doesn't even see it.

If he is reasonably representative of Norwegian thinking, that country might be past saving.

Jan-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <tga: I never really considered political correctness to be a big problem until recently. But it has become pervasive, giving your provocative statement its merit.

Arguing with <Bureaucrat> the last couple of days has been an eye-opener. In all serious, not trying to be snide or cute, but talking to him was like going into a bizarro world.>

It should be an eye opener. You see, political correctness is the biggest problem because it makes it impossible to tackle those other problems you mentioned. If half the people reject the truth, the whole society suffers in every way,

The banking corruption will never be solved because greed will never be solved, Iím afraid. Islamic terrorism can be solved but not with PC in the way.

Just look at PC idiots like <al-ways boring>, <bureaucrat> and <Zanzibar>. Such people only make issues worse because they flat out reject the truth. PC liberalism looks at 911 and concludes we need more muzzies and we need the now! Lots more.

PC makes it impossible to be effective in solving problems.

Jan-18-18  Troller: <The truth does not allow interpretation.> Who decides what is the Christian truth then? We can read the Bible, but there are many contradictory views found here; also, to understand it correctly I would think one needs to read it in the original language, meanwhile having a broad knowledge of the culture and society in which it was written.

Just to get it clear: Do you accept differing interpretations of Christianity at all, or are you talking specifically about certain interpretations? There are many churches out there...

As for <PC>, there are places and topics where this has tilted discussion, I can agree to that. I do not see it as a major problem where I live; however, there are of course hardline proponents of it here as well. Paradoxically they may be working in a counter-productive way (from their viewpoint), as the more extreme ideas they flout, the more the reaction will grow.

This is what I fear most in fact, that society becomes centrifugal with groups standing very far from each other and basically unwilling (and unable) to discuss with each other. Historically such situations have led to unfortunate situations.

Which is also why I enjoy posting here - I think we have little in common when it comes to our political views, but one should never resort to only enter into discussions where everyone agrees. This just leads to reinforcing your existing views instead of broadening your outlook.

Jan-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <This is inaccurate. Lots of Dems are against abortion and that other stuff too. >

They vote for people who support those evils.

You cannot vote for a democrat a be a Christian because the democratic position is in opposition to Christianity.>

Did you even click on the link to Mazzoli, and read about him? Because such a sweeping generalization suggests that you didn't

Jan-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <tga: Did you even click on the link to Mazzoli, and read about him? Because such a sweeping generalization suggests that you didn't>

Yes, I did, and I appreciate the link. However, I didn't say all Democrats support abortion though. I said there is no way (it's impossible) to be a Christian (a child of God, renewed, born again etc...) and vote for the Democratic party.

The Democratic Party stands behind abortion, normalizing sin such as homosexuality and cross dressing, undoing the spiritual order of life (God the head of Christ, Christ the head of man and man the head of his wife). God was booed at the DNC!

The Democratic party runs on liberalism, which is the anti-Christian alternative.

If someone says he's a Christian and that person votes for the Democrats, the truth is not in him and he's a liar.

On many of my arguments and debates there's room for the other side to make their case. This includes the moral argument, the argument from contingency, the argument from cosmology, the ontological argument and so on. But with this particular statement I've made, there is no room for debate.

I realize, <tga>, that you are against abortion and voted Democrat for years, but you're not a Christian either.

Someone who says, "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior and he forgives me of my sins, because I'm a sinner and I repent and He is my Lord" - if that person votes for the Democrats, he is not a Christian. He is <NOT> a child of God with a renewed mind and new <Nature>.

The liberals profane the Sacred and lift up the unholy, the sin, and they teach others how to rationalize it. I don't care if they shortened the work week in 1912.

I think I should add one thing. Not all people who proclaim to be a Christian are in fact a Christian. As I see it, most of what you might think of as being Christian, including the various kinds of churches and denominations, including many of the well known churchy, Christiany sayings we hear - most of that has nothing to do with being a Christian. The concept of Christianity has been watered down and the simple truths and foundations of what it means to be a Christian are sidelined in favor of what I call Christian Dogma.

Jan-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < Troller: <The truth does not allow interpretation.> Who decides what is the Christian truth then? >

<Troller>, the truth does not become the truth because somebody decides it.

Jan-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  cormier: <Big Pawn> ... hi, today i posted on the existance of God on my forum, it's only step 1 out of 3, ..... i hope it can help in some way <ChessHigherCat> about God and Abram
Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <tga: Did you even click on the link to Mazzoli, and read about him? Because such a sweeping generalization suggests that you didn't>

Yes, I did, and I appreciate the link. However, I didn't say all Democrats support abortion though.>

Well, originally you said "Democrats", which portrays them as a monolithic group.

Will Rogers is famous for quipping that "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

And when I was a hardcore evangelical Christian in my early 20s, and also registered Republican, I had to cross party lines to vote for Mazzoli. That's because in that year the GOP candidate was pro-choice, and being pro-life was my litmus test at the time.

Anyway, maybe I am picking nits here, but I don't generally agree with sweeping generalizations.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <thegoodanarchist:

Anyway, maybe I am picking nits here, but I don't generally agree with sweeping generalizations.>

So there's no good bank?

<thegoodanarchist:
I think the biggest problem is a corrupt banking system>

I think it's implied statements aren't 100%.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <diceman: <thegoodanarchist:

Anyway, maybe I am picking nits here, but I don't generally agree with sweeping generalizations.>

So there's no good bank?

<thegoodanarchist:
I think the biggest problem is a corrupt banking system>
>

I didn't say "no good bank", as you can see.

There are thousands of banks in America, some big and some small. Lots of them are good. In fact, my experience in life is that most of them are good.

But they don't run the banking system.

One small group does. The Federal Reserve Board.

When's the last time they were audited?

When's the last time they paid a market-driven interest rate?

Why is it that the largest stock market bubble in history has correlated with the biggest Fed balance sheet expansion in history?

Why is Wall Street enriched by Fed QE while tens of millions ordinary Americans get fleeced on their savings interest rates? Who sets those rates?

Why are multiple US Treasury Secretaries chosen from the ranks of Goldman Sachs elites? Why did Federal entities let Lehman go down, but stepped in to prevent Goldman failing during the GFC? Why did no one responsible for the GFC go to jail under W or Obama?

Food for thought.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <tga: Well, originally you said "Democrats", which portrays them as a monolithic group.>

I did say that you cannot be a Christian and vote for the democrats. It doesnít matter if some democrats are against abortion because fundamentally the platform is entirely anti Christian.

A Christian is not just someone who says theyíre a Christian. Neither is a Christian someone that grew up as a so called Christian. A Christian is not someone who goes up to the alter and ďreceives Jesus as his lord and saviorĒ. Such people can live any old way and vote for who ever they want.

A Christian is one who is a child of God, with a new nature, Godís nature, and a renewed mind. These people will cannot vote for a democrat. Democrats support other democrats and liberalism is their worldview, which is incompatible with Christianity.

Look at obama. He is a late term abortion guy and democrats voted for him. Heís a guy that tried to normalize homosexuality and cross dressing. He had the signs switched on the bathroom doors.

A Christian could not vote for a person who either supports this or supports a party that supports this.

From every angle the Democratic Party is very clearly the anti Christian party. People who hate Christians and have an axe to grind against them join the Democratic Party.

And just look at the blindness of all these people! Is it not uncanny how they all react in the same non thinking predictable way? Thereís a reason for that. Their house (worldview) is built upon the sand.

This is not to say that the GOP is the party of God, but at least they are not the clear anti Christian alternative.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <thegoodanarchist

Why is it that the largest stock market bubble in history has correlated with the biggest Fed balance sheet expansion in history?>

I thought because they had to absorb
the radioactive slop?
Since they basically have infinite time/buying power.

<Why is Wall Street enriched by Fed QE while tens of millions ordinary Americans get fleeced on their savings interest rates? Who sets those rates?>

Part of that is the indoctrination
of Wall Street being a rigged/risky game.

People tend to be duped into "safe"
savings accounts, missing out on
stock returns, through Mutual Funds,
and today, ETFs.

I thought the whole Obama economic recovery was because of central banks bringing rates to almost zero. As he had no real economic plan.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <tga: Well, originally you said "Democrats", which portrays them as a monolithic group.>

I did say that you cannot be a Christian and vote for the democrats. It doesnít matter if some democrats are against abortion because fundamentally the platform is entirely anti Christian.>

Well, not everyone in a party agrees with their entire platform.

And I am not speaking of hypotheticals. I was faced with an actual choice in an actual real US House of Representatives election.

I was a hardcore evangelical Christian at the time, with a pro-life litmus test.

Mazzoli met the requirement, the Republican didn't.

When I was a believer I was no wishy-washy pseudo Christian. I was a true believer all the way. I prayed every day. Read the Bible every day. Went to church 3 times a week. I tithed.

And at the time, I voted for the Democratic candidate. It was the right thing for any Christian to do. That's my view at the time, and that's my view today.

Mazzoli stuck to his pro-life views without consideration for the party platform, IIRC.

Now, no way am I saying this is a frequent occurrence. Especially now, with how much the party has changed since that time over 20 years ago.

But I am saying your statement is not a hard and fast rule - there are situations when it would be the right thing for a Christian to vote for the Dem. My situation was.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <There is almost nothing worse than a "strong" willed woman.>

Wouldn't that depend on what you are strong willed about?

If it is a "bad" strong willed, is being
female vs. male any different?

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Tga: But I am saying your statement is not a hard and fast rule - there are situations when it would be the right thing for a Christian to vote for the Dem. My situation was.>

Do you think the Democratic Party is different today than it was in 1981?

Reading the bible every day, tithing, praying three times a day - none of that matters at all, as far as I see it. That does not a Christian make. You can go to church until you're black and blue in the face, lift up holy hands, sing and dance, whoop and holler, read the bible every day and all that but none of that matters even a little bit.

That does not make one a Christian. Those are just the things that we are taught to do by other Christians who are already "in the club" so to speak.

Unless you are born again of God, have a new Nature which is God's nature, then nothing changes. Such a person does not "stop believing" or fall away or anything like that. It's impossible.

The common, popular notion of what a Christian is, is not what a Christian is.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: < diceman:

Part of that is the indoctrination
of Wall Street being a rigged/risky game.

People tend to be duped into "safe"
savings accounts, missing out on
stock returns, through Mutual Funds,
and today, ETFs. >

Yes, all parties have responsibility in that situation, including those folks fearful of stock investing.

But let us face facts. Everyone is different, with different strengths and weaknesses. There are some people who are literally terrified of math, but they might be good at poetry, or something else.

Many folks are fearful of money, of handling money, of letting an advisor handle their money. A safe savings account is just right for many people like this.

Now the Fed was originally set up to address the Panic of 1907. Many banks and other businesses went bankrupt because lenders quit lending during the panic, and the liquidity was removed from the banking system.

It was obvious that banks themselves needed a "lender of last resort" and the Fed provides that very critical function for our banking system.

But now they don't limit themselves to that role, and neither does their nominal oversight group, our US Congress.

Now the Fed distorts interest rates, which robs savers of market-based interest return on savings and bonds. This is a disincentive to private individuals, which makes them save less and buy fewer bonds. Saving less results in less capital being provided to banks or to the bond market. So in turn the Fed then needs/justifies more active role in capital markets, which is yet another capital market distortion.

Absorbing the radioactive slop, without legal consequences to the perps, also injects moral hazard into the banking system.

And don't even get me started on "target" inflation, which erodes the value of our dollars. This is sneaky and hidden theft of our hard-earned wealth, and helps the deficit spenders in D.C. to mitigate the deleterious effects of their reckless, endless deficit spending, at taxpayer expense.

I could go on and on, but in general the point is that practically all accountability has been removed from the FRB, resulting in mission creep and malignant unintended consequences of many types.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: I should say, the Fed was set up to address the banking system problems highlighted by the Panic of 1907.
Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < diceman: <There is almost nothing worse than a "strong" willed woman.>

Wouldn't that depend on what you are strong willed about?

If it is a "bad" strong willed, is being
female vs. male any different?>

A "strong willed woman" is the kind of woman who says that she wants her marriage to be 50/50, but that actually means she wants to run the show.

A "strong willed woman" is a woman that wants to be the man of the house.

A "strong willed woman" makes a cuck out of her husband.

In life God has a spiritual order. It goes God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of Man and Man is the head of his wife. A strong willed woman rebels against this.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <tga: Now the Fed was originally set up to address the Panic of 1907. Many banks and other businesses went bankrupt because lenders quit lending during the panic, and the liquidity was removed from the banking system.

It was obvious that banks themselves needed a "lender of last resort" and the Fed provides that very critical function for our banking system.>

That's a good, concise explanation.

The rest of the post is also on point and lucid. A good post.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <Tga: But I am saying your statement is not a hard and fast rule - there are situations when it would be the right thing for a Christian to vote for the Dem. My situation was.>

Do you think the Democratic Party is different today than it was in 1981?>

Yes, very much so. And different from the early 1990s, when I cast the vote in question.

<Reading the bible every day, tithing, praying three times a day - none of that matters at all, as far as I see it. That does not a Christian make. You can go to church until you're black and blue in the face, lift up holy hands, sing and dance, whoop and holler, read the bible every day and all that but none of that matters even a little bit.>

That's fine. I wrote my post that way because I didn't feel like getting into what you are getting into here:

<That does not make one a Christian.>

You got into what I didn't feel like getting into right now. So be it.

Why do you think I did all of those things? AFAIK, people don't just one day decide to start doing all of those things, for no reason. Nobody ever once.

They either do those things because they are children and are forced to do them...

Or, they are adults (as I was) and start doing those things for a reason.

One fine day I started praying every day, reading the Bible every day, and going to church for every service. Why? I am not irrational, nor crazy. So why?

<Unless you are born again of God, have a new Nature which is God's nature, then nothing changes.>

And that is what happened to me. I became born again. That's why I started doing all of those things.

< Such a person does not "stop believing" or fall away or anything like that. It's impossible. >

No, it's possible to fall away. I did. After over a decade, I eventually quit church. Quit praying. Quit Bible study.

I did try to stop believing and embrace atheism. It didn't take. God has made it clear to me that God is real. I cannot escape that.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: < Big Pawn: < diceman: <There is almost nothing worse than a "strong" willed woman.>

...

In life God has a spiritual order. It goes God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of Man and Man is the head of his wife. A strong willed woman rebels against this.>>

Thought-provoking! And my thought is this:

Many Western men are leaving their Western countries and going to Asia (Philippines, Thailand, even Viet Nam) to find wives or girlfriends who are not feminists.

I think the Philippines has been Catholic for a couple of centuries, or nearly that. Not so for the other countries.

So why did feminism (what I call radical feminism, but I will write feminism so we can ignore that debate for now) become a movement in the Christian countries first, bypassing Asian countries?

One hypothesis for the beginning of feminism is that the CIA introduced it in order to increase the income tax base, by getting women into the workforce.

Seems too facile though, IMO. If we look at it through the paradigm of the religions of civilization, then we note that feminism is not a US movement, but a Western/Christian nation movement.

Did the CIA work to initiate feminism in multiple countries? If so, then why mainly Western civilization/Christian nations?

I don't expect we will agree on root cause for this issue, but I will be open-minded and read your thoughts on it first!

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <tga: And that is what happened to me. I became born again. That's why I started doing all of those things.

< Such a person does not "stop believing" or fall away or anything like that. It's impossible. >

No, it's possible to fall away. I did.>

No, that is not being born again of God and having God's nature instead of your old nature. That is just Christian rituals and it means nothing unless you return to the Father.

I would say that you never fell away because you were never real born again of God.

<Tga>, being born again of God is not an intellectual status that changes in one's life. It's a spiritual change. The kingdom of heaven is within, so none of the outside stuff matters.

When one is born again of God and becomes a child of God, he no longer has his old nature, which is doubt, worry, anger, resentment, unforgiveness and so on.

A lot of people start praying every day, going to church, get baptized, go to Wednesday night bible study, join prayer groups - and their lives never change. They have the same old issues, messed up family, messed up relationships, resentment toward their mother or father (or both), anger, living in the imagination, subject to addictions, hounded by doubt and worry. They never change because it's a spiritual change, not an intellectual or ritualistic one.

An intellectual cannot find his way there, but he will find his way to anger, misery, doubt, worry and all of that.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Did the CIA work to initiate feminism in multiple countries? If so, then why mainly Western civilization/Christian nations?>

I just think feminism is a logical outgrowth of liberalism.

Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: The family is the bedrock of Judaeo-Christian societies. Rebellion to God will always-always-surface in opposition to the divinely revealed order.
Jan-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: William Lane Craig on 8 arguments for theism.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...

This is a great article! He summarized 8 different arguments for Godís existence. Itís written so well, so perfectly. It covers the moral argument (stated a little differently than usual) and it also included the argument from intentional states of consciousness, which I would love to argue.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 98)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 98 OF 98 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC