Well, <the focus> , it was very generous of <big pawn> to share *real* teachings of Jesus. There is no reason to use profanities for the generosity that <big pawn> showed.

As far as your good relationship with god , well you should not speak for <thegoodanarchist>. If you ever understand the conversations of <big pawn> (which <thegoodanarchist> failed to understand) , you would know that <the good anarchist> was deluded as <big pawn> clearly showed.

<the focus> , at best you can say something like" I think <thegoodanarchist> is the only person among us who does not understand teachings of Jesus. It is possible that we too are deluded the way <thegoodanarchist> was deluded and like him we too don't know teachings of Jesus. But this we can know only if we are ever able to understand conversations of <big pawn>"

Let me know if you ever understand the conversations of <big pawn> about teachings of Jesus.

[White "BIG PAWN"]
[Black "nn"]
[Result "1-0"]

[CurrentPosition "

click for larger view

"]

"Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?" (John 10:34)

Comment.>

Jesus was showing them their hypocrisy. Their own law proclaimed that they are gods, and these Jews weren't stoning the scriptures, yet they were going to stone Jesus on a similar count of blasphemy.

We'd need to try it to find out.
Most of failed government was never voted on by:

"We The People"

<Big Pawn:

Jesus was showing them their hypocrisy. Their own law proclaimed that they are gods>

Didn't know Jesus knew Obama/Hillary?

<Gods, with a small "g", they were called>

The scripture Jesus is quoting is in fact a rebuke:

<“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”>

Please note that neither the Hebrew or the Greek languages used capitalized or uncapitalized letters.

Therefore when we read in English a translation of god in the Greek or Hebrew we cannot depend on the capitalization of the word for proper interpretation because the capitalization is only the editor's opinion of what the texts mean.

We should look at the context and the whole story to determine if it's God or god.

And <big pawn> talked about being reborn....- which is same as 'enlightenment'.

As <big pawn> rightly said - for enlightenment , first one needs to be free from all emotions . have stillness of mind and purity of heart.

So after one has reached that 'level' of stillness where one is free from emotions/thoughts and before enlightenment , one reaches a state when one can watch one's deep dreamless sleep state.

We remember dreams and we have memory of waking state. But we don't have memory of deep dreamless state.

<Big Pawn, Steamed Colleagues>

Please pardon an off topic post-

<Big Pawn>, to add to our old topic of ad-blocking software, I have been adding a new one recently and I wanted to let you and your readers know about it in case you don't already.

It's an extension you can get for any browser, no download required. Here is the link for the Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...

It works perfectly with no conflict together with ad block, ad block plus, and youtube ad blocker.

It has a "sliding mechanism" that lets you test to see if you are actually blocking an ad in question. For example, on a typical news page, such as <Huff *cough* Post>, you can put your mouse on the sidebar ads and then slide them out of existence- without losing any of the text in the actual *cough* articles.

I put the *coughs* in because <Huff Post> bears no relation to an actual news page. It is full of outright lies. Most recently, they quoted a source in which a judge ruled President Trump was "anti Muslim". But the <Huff Post> title of the article said something like "Judge rules that President Trump is an anti Muslim Bigot."

I read the entire text of the actual judgment online and the word "bigot" does not appear.

<Big Pawn>, to add to our old topic of ad-blocking software>

That's nice to have, but what I'd really like is to find a reputable news website that doesn't automatically launch videos.

If I wanted video news, I would buy a TV.

I don't. I want to read my news. I used to go to reuters.com, but even they have started auto-launching videos.

UPI says "Democrat Party", so they are clearly biased against the Democratic Party (there is no "Democrat Party", it is a misnomer).

BBC.com is my final refuge, but they have more celebrity crappola than nearly any other "news" website. I can't stand that celebrity crappola.

God could't measure anything before humans created numbers?>

Your concept of God seems to be of the "superman" variety - like a man, but with superpowers.

Here you assume that God has to use mathematics to know how many stars exist. You are just pigeonholing God, though, claiming that God has numeracy the same way a human does. Good luck proving that claim. It is more than a little bit arrogant to think you know how the mind of God works.

<Here's another thing of God that we can know definitively. God exists... Moral values are a thing of God, .... We can know definitively that moral values exist.>

I don't disagree. You clearly are not understanding my argument. You are confusing 2 different concepts. You are talking here about the concept of knowing definitively that something *exists*.

I was talking about a different concept, which is definitively *understanding* something that is from God, for not just yourself, but for all of humanity and for all time.

Let us use your example of mathematics. We both definitively know mathematics exists. Neither of us definitively understand mathematics. Now do you see?

<If God told Isaiah that to tell the King of Israel that he was going to die, then Isaiah knew definitively that he was going to die, and that knowledge is a thing of God.>

I refer you back to my previous example. Look, here's the big picture. You are confusing "definitively knowing something exists" with "definitively understanding it". Huge difference between those two.

We of course know that faith exists, predestination exists at least as a concept, salvation exists. Knowing those things exists is entirely separate from fully understanding them, having God's understanding of them.

These things are all aspects of a two-way relationship, between a human and God. You, I, everyone, we can only fully understand our own side of that relationship, because we are finite and God is infinite.

And if Christianity is true, then God has a personal relationship with humans. Which means that relationship is unique, just as every human is unique. So when you, <BP>, want to take your understanding of your relationship with God, and apply it to other people's relationships with God, it is incorrect. It is erroneous to do so.

<So this whole idea that I can't know that a person cannot be unborn of God because it's a thing of God (whatever that is) and (you assert) no one can definitively know (rather than know) a thing of God, has no real meat to it.>

See above.

<And, you haven't made the case that one needs to have a definitive understanding of anything to comment rightly on it. We can say that a car is a four door without having a definitive understanding of cars.>

That is not analogous. We are discussing things of God, such as faith. Which is the evidence of things unseen. You are trying to compare something that is seen, with something that is unseen.

<You haven't made an argument that God can't reveal to us something he wants us to know, and therefore allow us to comment rightly on it.>

The argument I have made is essentially that humans are finite, and therefore their comprehension of God is finite. And therefore the implications of that, the ramifications, are as I have outlined them.

<Finally, you're here arguing that since you can't definitively know a thing of God (whatever that is) then you can't comment rightly on it, but, you're commenting that you WERE born of God and DID fall away!>

[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2018.02.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "ChubbyGambler"]
[Black "FM elarbiabobker"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C10"]
[WhiteElo "1924"]
[BlackElo "1886"]
[TimeControl "60"]
[EndTime "4:26:08 PST"]
[Termination "ChubbyGambler won on time"]
[CurrentPosition "

click for larger view

"]

As you tell me what God does or does not need to do to count the stars and so forth.

<You are just pigeonholing God, though, claiming that God has numeracy the same way a human does. >

Glad you know the mind of God so well.

<Let us use your example of mathematics. We both definitively know mathematics exists. Neither of us definitively understand mathematics. Now do you see?>

Yet we definitely know that math exists, so we definitely know something about math, namely, that it exists.

This whole idea of "definitively understanding" is not the criterion for knowledge, so it's completely arbitrary.

I don't need to know you to know that one does not become unborn of God, once one is a child of God, with a new nature, that is, reborn of God. All of this is just red herring nonsense.

I told you what I know already.

<I refer you back to my previous example. Look, here's the big picture. You are confusing "definitively knowing something exists" with "definitively understanding it". Huge difference between those two.>

There's no difference, and furthermore, this whole "definitively understanding" tangent is not to the point.

<You, I, everyone, we can only fully understand our own side of that relationship, because we are finite and God is infinite.>

It's not about understanding a relationship, it's about knowing the nature of being born of God or not being born of God.

<And if Christianity is true, then God has a personal relationship with humans. Which means that relationship is unique, just as every human is unique. So when you, <BP>, want to take your understanding of your relationship with God, and apply it to other people's relationships with God, it is incorrect. It is erroneous to do so.>

See previous comment.

<<And, you haven't made the case that one needs to have a definitive understanding of anything to comment rightly on it. We can say that a car is a four door without having a definitive understanding of cars.>

That is not analogous. We are discussing things of God, such as faith. Which is the evidence of things unseen. You are trying to compare something that is seen, with something that is unseen.>

Doesn't matter, since the point of your rebuttal hinges on <definitive understanding being necessary in order to comment rightfully> and I just showed that is not true. You can comment rightfully on a car even though you do not definitively understand it. That falsifies your notion incontrovertibly.

Still, this <Definitive Understanding> thing is neither here nor there.

<<You haven't made an argument that God can't reveal to us something he wants us to know, and therefore allow us to comment rightly on it.>

The argument I have made is essentially that humans are finite, and therefore their comprehension of God is finite. And therefore the implications of that, the ramifications, are as I have outlined them.>

Finite, infinite - none of that speaks to what I said in the immediate quote above.

<
TheFocus: I deleted <Nis>'s post from my forum also.>>

It is very sad and pathetic when someone goes around to other people's forums and tries to post, just to see if he is on their ignore list.

<schweigzwang: <For 5 years I’ve been defending the moral argument and no one claims to have refuted either premise.>

Oh, yes, please remind us: The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim/statement, or the burden of disproof is on others?>

The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.

So if someone says that premise one or premise two is not true, then they carry a burden of proof.

The way it went is like this: For 4 years the dunces in this forum, the liberal eggheads who think they're smart, claimed that the argument was invalid, circular and had logical faults, all the while avoiding trying to refute the premises. Then, in the fifth year, they all came to realize, one after another, by helping each other out and correcting one another, that the argument is valid, not circular and logically airtight.

For instance, <Abdel> was one of the most stubborn ones, mocking, scoffing, carrying on about what an idiot I was because I was the <only> one that didn't realize the argument was circular.

1. <Abdel Irada: Your model syllogism to prove the existence of God is in fact a model of such circular reasoning. One of your (unproven and unprovable) premises recapitulates your conclusion.> Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #122804)

That was back in 2013. Then, finally, by 2017:

2. <Abdel Irada: Excuse me? I have said several times, most recently in my last post, that in common with almost everyone in the conversation, I did at first take your argument to be circular.

That was a mistake on my part>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #253670)

As <abdel> noted, all the laughers and mockers, all the arrogant but woefully ignorant liberals had it wrong:

3. <Abdel Irada: <Big Pawn: He used to argue that the Moral Argument was circular.>

So did most of the people in the conversation>> Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #253669)

You see, even <abdel> started to see the light, and he knew that admitting it would shock me:

4. <Abdel Irada: Actually (and this will probably make <!!> swallow his tongue in shock), it is my opinion that there *is* one objective moral value, from which all others flow.> Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #160736)

At this point, <abdel> tried to argue against the first premise but wound up eventually agreeing with it.

5. <<abdel> agree that 1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

He recognized that if MV are only ideas in the mind then they aren't existing objectively:

6. <abdel: I mentioned the presence in our brains of mirror neurons as indicative of a possible evolutionary origin for empathy and the values that flow from it.

Somehow, whether by accident or design, you managed to read this as a claim that empathy existed because we thought it did (which would indeed disqualify it as an OMV).>

7. <abdel: I'm talking about moral values created by God and instilled in us by biological means such as the mirror neurons under discussion.

How are such values "relative"? >

He recognizes that OMV come from God:

<abdel: I'm talking about moral values created by God>

This satisfies the first premise:

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

He already agrees that premise two is true:

2. OMV exist. >

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #240172)

Eventually, <Abdel>, who was the only one left debating the argument, thinking he was going to refute it by showing that it's invalid or refute one of the premises, said this:

<Abdel: *in my personal opinion* both of your premises are correct. >

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #241105)

And from the same link:

8. <abdel: Yes, *I think* that we have objective moral values, and that they ultimately come from God. >

Then, after our debate in December about the OMV argument he said this:

9. <Abdel Irada: ∞

<Big Pawn>: You make strong arguments, but it may be that I only *perceive* them as strong because, like you, I am a theist.> Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #241122)

Finally, he was humble about it:

10. <Abdel: Now, of course you are a seasoned hand in arguing this, so perhaps you will mop the floor with me. But I'm willing to put it to the test and see if you can make any headway against my old position >

7 days per move?> Yes and yes. Thanks for your interest.

As you tell me what God does or does not need to do to count the stars and so forth. >

No, I did not do that.

Look, I have tried multiple times to have good-faith discussions with you.

And, in every case, you have misrepresented my arguments at every turn.

<Glad you know the mind of God so well. >

Another misrepresentation. I did not claim, nor did I imply, an explanation of the mind of God.

<This whole idea of "definitively understanding" is not the criterion for knowledge, so it's completely arbitrary. >

A straw man here.

I never said a definitive understanding is the criterion for knowledge. I said *you* don't have a definitive understanding. You have a partial understanding of something from God because you are finite and god is infinite.

Therefore your claim to have final say on someone else's experience with god is as objective as such a claim from all the other monotheists. In other words, not objective at all.

It's your *belief*.

<I don't need to know you to know that one does not become unborn of God, once one is a child of God, with a new nature, that is, reborn of God. All of this is just red herring nonsense.>

This is yet another misrepresentation of what I said.

I said I fell away, and I told you what I meant by that (and asked what your definition is of that phrase - a question you've yet to answer!).

<<tga: I refer you back to my previous example. Look, here's the big picture. You are confusing "definitively knowing something exists" with "definitively understanding it". Huge difference between those two.>

BP: There's no difference, >

Patently absurd. Do you know that the scientific discipline of chemistry exists? Yes, you do. Do you definitively understand it? No, you do not.

I am astounded that you cannot admit this truism!

...

<Doesn't matter, since the point of your rebuttal hinges on <definitive understanding being necessary in order to comment rightfully> and I just showed that is not true. >

And I've repeatedly pointed out that every other monotheist thinks they have that, and yet there is no agreement on the supposed definitive understanding of many of the foundational tenets of Christianity (and other monotheisms).

To put it bluntly, that is the same claim of every cult leader and splinter sect founder that ever lived. You have yourself convinced that you know *THE* truth about various tenets of the faith, but seem unable to realize that is the exact same situation everyone else is in! And there are multiple understandings of ALL the tenets.

Not only that, you don't have any valid case to show why, out of the billions of Christians who've ever lived, YOU are the select one with the perfect understanding!

Is this diagram supposed to be the position after move 11?>

Yes. It's white to play, move 12.

<tga: Look, I have tried multiple times to have good-faith discussions with you.

And, in every case, you have misrepresented my arguments at every turn.>

Here's the deal. You don't understand the implications of what you say, so you think I'm misrepresenting your arguments. I'm not. And further, I've gone easy on your with kid gloves with this whole thing because I don't really want to kick you down the stairs like the <tuna>, because I actually think that once you cogitate on what I've said to you, you will come around to changing your mind.

You're hopelessly confused about basic philosophical reasoning and logic, and I can see that 100% clear as day. It's not a matter of disagreeing. Still, even with all this, I have resisted the urge to hammer away at you because, again, I think it's unnecessary.

The way I see it is if you take your pride and get it the hell out of the way, then you'll understand what I'm saying. If you don't, then it's a waste of my time anyway.

Now dont't ell me I'm misrepresenting your arguments, or I'll have to come out guns blazing and push you backwards into the campfire, and I don't want to have to do that.

Don't start with the straw man accusations and such, because I will be forced to jam this stuff down your throat, and you won't like it, and I'm right, I know it, I'm comfortable here and you're in over your head, frankly.

https://www.amren.com/news/2018/02/...

Very interesting article.

<Over the week, there have been waves of backlash at The Metropolitan Opera’s newest season announcement. A recent Washington Post made the rounds, taking to task the institution’s insistence on an entirely white and male composer list, as well as a completely male roster of conductors taking the podium.

Chicago is especially no exception, as evidenced by the Lyric Opera’s lack of awareness in their recent copy for their 2018/2019 season right on their website:

“We pride ourselves on bringing you diverse programming, and the 2018/19 Season is no exception. Verdi and Puccini in all their passion, elegant Handel and Mozart, romantic Massenet, mighty Strauss and Wagner—there’s no end to the riches that will make this season one to remember.”

As a white man, there have been and continue to be countless times in which I have needed to recognize that privilege, white supremacy, homophobia, toxic masculinity, and gender normativity are layered issues. It’s easy to call a Nazi a racist because they are so obviously a racist. Not all racists are willing to take up that mantle.

Recognizing that Classical Music has implied White Supremacy for centuries is hard for those that study the art form. In fact, that correlating The Met’s continued programming of dead white men to the rise of White Supremacist tendencies in America is not a far stretch is starting to become apparent to those that follow and review the company’s season announcements.

Of course Italian Opera traditions are rich and are the backbone for many composers, but when an American institution, founded on the grounds of Natives and whose nation’s economy was fueled by the labor of slavery continues in 2018 to program exclusively white men, there’s a message being sent to those who don’t fall into that category.

snip

In the work Blackness in Opera, edited by Naomi André, a series of black scholars take to task a series of historical placements that have helped to create the space in which we find the art form today. In André’s own chapter, “From Otello to Porgy, Blackness, Masculinity, and Morality in Opera,” she points out where even Classical Music’s best intentions can go horribly wrong.

Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, a work heavily influenced by the jazz movement, was the first representation that the art form had, but at the time it was clear that its warm welcome was thanks to Gershwin’s whiteness. Gershwin then followed this work up with Porgy and Bess’ predecessor, Blue Monday. This work was panned heavily by the black community of the time, and André documents this extensively.

snip

To be frank, Blue Monday was a minstrel show. The work Gershwin did before he wrote Porgy and Bess was appropriating black idioms through blackface.>

Read more

<Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, February 16, 2018

A major Hungarian city submitted a brief video about itself to a European competition, only to be rejected at the entry level because the city was too, well, white. And Christian, too—another point against the city.>

Two things liberals hate are white people and Christians. In America, if you hate white's and Christians, you can feel right at home in the Democratic Party.

<CrossWare, who translated the article below, includes this prefatory note:

Székesfehérvár is my hometown, a thousand-year-old city, where the original Royal Court resided. Dozens of kings and queens are buried beneath the city’s cathedral, but it is also a modern town. Many high-tech companies set up shop here; the area is sometimes described as the “Hungarian Silicon Valley”.

Back during the Christmas season Gates of Vienna posted a couple of pictures showing the Fair without any Merkel Legos or machine guns…

This was the video submitted for the competition: “Székesfehérvár Full of Life”

The translated article from 888.hu:

EU Jury: In Székesfehérvár there are too many whites and too few migrants>

Liberalim says there are too many whites and too few migrants, who are not white. They see whiteness as something bad, something that needs to be fixed. It's a problem.

<An EU jury decided to recommend the entries by Győr, Debrecen and Veszprém for the finals of the European Capital of Culture (EKF 2023) project. Among the seven submissions to date, the EU’s “unrelated international experts” rejected the submission of Székesfehérvár’s debut film: <<<“There are too many happy white people and crosses, and not enough migrants”.>>>

Dr. András Cser-Palkovics, the Mayor, gave an extraordinary press conference on Wednesday after hearing of the ECF decision in Budapest.

Regarding the work of the jury, as a member of the delegation, he said that in fact no expert hearing was conducted, but was solely based on daily political issues, and accusations were directed at Székesfehérvár and the delegation.

Speaking about Wednesday’s hearing, Sr. András Cser-Palkovics said that when they presented the promotional film “Székesfehérvár Full of Life” — which can be accessed on YouTube, with over 3,000 visitors — one of the European Union’s experts said with astonishment:

“This is the propaganda film for white Christian Europe; everyone is white, happy and dancing in the streets.”

The mayor also recalled the criticisms made by the film committee about Székesfehérvár:

“They left the poor and the migrants out of the film, but at the same time, there were too many crosses, churches, and what was even worse, the attitude of the city, because they regarded this as a value.”

One member of the Commission, a Belgian politician, objected to the fact that the foundation and identity of the entry was determined by the Greek, Roman and Christian-Jewish cultures.

“Yet this value system provides the European diversity, which makes us proud of Europe, and because of which I say that this hearing was not a European-style hearing. Neither his style nor the content was about what we launched as a movement of the European Capital of Culture,” noted the Mayor, and he announced that he would ask the city’s General Assembly to reject the hearing and to inform the government about the work of the committee.>