There has been a campaign to persuade white people not to have children. Even though over-population is not a problem in predominantly white countries many whites won't have children for this reason.

There has been a concerted effort to persuade white girls and women to have children with non-whites, particularly black males. Here's some examples.

The status of white men is torn down in every way possible while the status of black males is built up in every way possible.

Black male female couples are shown in advertisements, TV shows, movies, etc. They are always shown as being happy.

White men are shown as inferior to or subordinate to black males in advertisements, TV shows, movies, etc.

Another way is to take away the means for white men to support a family. White men are heavily discriminated against in all areas of society.

White men are dehumanized and demonized so
they will be looked down at. Non-white men are made to seem to be superior.

If current trends continue the complete elimination of white people is a mathematical certainty. This has all been planned and done intentionally.

1. Classification
2. Symbolization
3. Discrimination
4. Dehumanization
5. Organization
6. Polarization
7. Preparation
8. Persecution
9. Extermination
10. Denial

If an honest observers looks to see if these things are really happening they will realize they are.

<Well, I am not sure what part was addressed to me, but here is my answer anyway>

In fact I never got around to address your point - work came up - but thanks for already giving further input.

I do get your point and I am pretty sure it also applies to many people. But to turn <OCF>'s argument around, I think it might well take an act of will to <seek> God in such way. Meaning, one should want to believe and therefore, I suspect, deep down already is a believer.

There are other religions and philosophies teaching us to focus and thereby achieve insight. I believe this can be done and if one wants to call such insight "God" then fine with me. This is not the same as doctrinal Christianity of course, as "insight" does not necessitate the existence of an outer wilful entity but I have my suspicion that this is essentially the same experience.

<OhioChessFan:
the tyranny of the paradigm takes over>

No they haven't. As is well known the libs aren't big on rational discourse.

Where would that desire come from? In fact, I think man is homo religiosis. Without insisting on making the God of the Bible be too beholdened to our sense of reason, surely if such a God existed, He'd give men a little nudge in the "right" direction.

<There are other religions and philosophies teaching us to focus and thereby achieve insight.>

That's all fine. But is it ultimately a search for truth? Besides that, I can have much insight and still not have any understanding of the big questions in life, like, "Why am I here? What is my purpose? What is life all about? Is there anything beyond what we can see?"

<I believe this can be done and if one wants to call such insight "God" then fine with me. This is not the same as doctrinal Christianity of course, as "insight" does not necessitate the existence of an outer wilful entity but I have my suspicion that this is essentially the same experience.>

I think if you'e a truthful seeker, you'll find the true God.

If you pray to dead people, you are not a Christian.

The Church is producing horrible evil all over the world, with homosexual priests raping thousands of innocent boys, and then the "super holy" bishops and whomever, coordinate the coverups, hiding their criminals from the police so as to evade justice, and it's been happening for a very, very long time.

Catholicism masquerades as a religion when it is actually a political organization with power, lots of worldly power, projecting evil all over the world, and it's mixed with Christian overtones.

Muzzies spread Islam with the sword, while the apostles spread it by preaching the gospel at the expense of their lives.

Catholics spread Catholicism with the sword as well.

Catholicism and Islam are two sides of the same coin.

The first Christians had church at each other's houses. A few would gather together, read a bit from some of the scrolls or new letters being passed around from Paul, Peter, John, and maybe sing a few songs. Then they'd eat and fellowship, and encourage one another.

It was very humble.

Now the Vatican has a gold toilet for the Pope.

Where does all the money come from?

Who knows?

<These days, you can get a deal on anything. Even salvation! Pope Benedict has announced that his faithful can once again pay the Catholic Church to ease their way through Purgatory and into the Gates of Heaven.>

https://www.yahoo.com/now/2009-02-1...

This is the kind of situation where we could see Jesus chasing everyone out of the Vatican with a whip.

I don't take the rejection personally because I understand how it is. I understand human nature to at least some degree.

However, despite how futile this is, I will say it again.

Unless you've read The Republic, you aren't educated. Your degrees are worth crap. They might make you feel good about yourself, but you're an imposter. A junk drawer full of garbage.

Then you need to read Augustine's Confessions.

Then maybe you will understand how Christianity was influenced by Plato. That is, how Augustine subjected biblical interpretation to pagan Greek philosophy.

Augustine was the most influential earth church leader. Some call such early church leaders, "Early Church Fathers". You see, when Augustine came to parts of scripture that he had a hard time making sense of, perhaps because it seemed contradictory to some other part of scripture, he would interpret it through the lens of pagan Greek philosophy to try to make sense of it.

This had negative consequences for all of Christianity until this very day.

How?

It is impossible to explain it in a post on Chessgames and have you understand it as you should. You need to read some thick books, and the reading isn't easy. You don't just read this stuff in a week an say, "I've read it."

It's heavy.

It's deep.

It requires contemplation and time. Yes, time is an important factor, and you can't rush time.

Early in Christianity, Christian doctrine was corrupted by forcing certain Platonic ideas into it, and then ad hoc rationalizing it and passing it forward. The weeds have roots, and the roots have grown deep under the soil and have entangled themselves with the roots of the plants in the garden.

You've got to dig it all up and see for yourselves how they are entangled and plant anew.

Look, I don't care how long you've been a "Christian" or how old you are. You can be 100 years old and have studied the bible for 80 years, but if you don't understand how Plato and Augustine affected Christian thought, you're a beginner in my book.

You've got to peel all of that pagan Greek philosophical residue off of Christianity before you see the real gospel in its simplicity. Only in this way can you tell the difference between Christian cliches and Christian truth.

There's been talk of the "tyranny of the paradigm" on this forum. However, if you aren't aware of how Plato and Augustine affected Christian doctrine, then you aren't even aware of your own paradigm.

This is why ignorant Christians are always mixing the scriptures.

Read Paul. Galatians, Romans, Corinthians etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-...

I thought I'd posted this some time ago, but apparently not. Anyway, it is presented as a refutation of Sanford's theory by an Evangelical Christian:

Ok, agreed.

I’ll start by making this point:

The resurrection is an essential part of the Christian gospel today. The gospel preached by Jesus that he gave to his apostles did not include the resurrection.

The apostles didn’t even know about the resurrection and were slow to believe when it was reported that Christ had risen.

Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews. He said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Paul was given the gospel of grace to the gentiles. See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, which includes the resurrection. Paul said the law is dead.

1. e4 d5 2. d4 c6 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nxf7

click for larger view

Kxf7

click for larger view

The computer says Black is winning but he has to play accurately.

7. Nf3 Nbd7 ?

Already this is a mistake, leaving Black with only an advantage of 1.71 whereas with 7...c5 he keeps almost a three pawn winning advantage.

Black often finds himself clogged up and unable to untangle himself. It's pretty frustrating. Black knows he's winning but the compensation lasts a long time. Black almost always finds it very difficult to consolidate, even when my opponents are NMs FM and sometimes even IMs.

8.Bc4+ e6 9. Qe2 Qe8 10. O-O Bd6 11. Ne5+

click for larger view

Should Black take on e5 or just move his king?

Bxe5 12. dxe5 Nd5 13. Bb3 Rf8 14. c4
N5b6

click for larger view

Black's making natural moves, but he's getting tangled up.

15. f4 Kg8 16. a4

It would be nice to be able to play c5 and open the bishop's diagonal to the black king, but then the knight could jump back to the d5 square and consolidate the position. a4 seek to drive the knight away so I can play c5 with impunity, but it also threatens to win a piece and entices Black to perhaps respond incorrectly.

Nc5 17. Bc2 a5 18. Be3 Nbd7 19. Rad1

click for larger view

Black's still got his extra piece and he's not mated yet. Will he untangle?

b6 20. Bb1 Ba6 21.
Qc2

Finally, the battery.

Qh5 22. Qh7+ Kf7

click for larger view

White to play.

23. f5 Ke7 24. f6+ Kd8

click for larger view

25. Bxc5 bxc5 26. Bg6

click for larger view

This is the key move.

Qxe5 27. Qxg7
Ra7 28. Qxf8+ Kc7

click for larger view

White to play.

29. Rxd7+ Kxd7 30. Qe7+ Kc8 31. Qxa7 Bxc4 32. f7 Qd4+ 33. Kh1 Bxf1 34. f8=Q+ Qd8 35. Qa8+ Kc7 36. Qfxd8# 1-0

click for larger view

<In fact, I think man is homo religiosis.> I am not disagreeing here, as also indicated by my previous post. Where we differ is probably that I do not think that the Christian God is the natural object of our religious devotion.

<That's all fine. But is it ultimately a search for truth? Besides that, I can have much insight and still not have any understanding of the big questions in life, like, "Why am I here? What is my purpose? What is life all about? Is there anything beyond what we can see?"> I think insight can be exactly that. It is about coming to an understanding of your role in the world. If you set out determined to find the Christian God then you will most likely find him, but you can also make a determined effort to become an enlightened Buddhist and eventually succeed.

If Christianity works for you, then I do not see any reason to change that. I am convinced it would not work for me.