|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-29-08
 | | OhioChessFan: The same person also said this:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the savage races throughout the world … The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla” |
|
Nov-29-08
| | OhioChessFan: Not to mention this about vaccinations:
“preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind … this must be highly injurious to the race of man.” |
|
Nov-29-08
 | | Open Defence: Darwin ? |
|
Nov-29-08
| | OhioChessFan: LOL, Odie, you were the first woman I thought of when I read that. You are correct. I think you'd clean his clock in a debate on the subject. |
|
Nov-30-08
| | Open Defence: <Ohio> regarding morals, well in the Good Book its written that Christ was repeatedly questioned by his disciples and the Powers as to why he spent time with publicans, sinners etc, also when it was a question of implementing a cruel written law (like stoning to death) he showed compassion instead of implementing cruel "justice" so sometimes I guess we need to look beyond our perception of what morality is, but this is very difficult to do in practice and borders on the Utopian, but sometimes there are "human" individuals who can do this Mahatma Gandhi is one that comes to mind
Mother Theresa is another |
|
Nov-30-08
| | Open Defence: btw my cousin married a Texan, his chilli is the best I ever tasted, was too spicy for me (and being an Indian, brother I can tell you our food can be very pungent) but it was awesome |
|
Nov-30-08
| | OhioChessFan: If you're interested in my take on the event you mentioned, per Jesus and stoning, I'll share that with you. As for morality, I think it impossible to proffer a moral code with any expectation someone else should agree with you. The simple question "Why should I?" is surprisingly difficult to parry. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | Open Defence: <Ohio> absolutetly, I am interested in your views |
|
| Dec-01-08 | | hitman84: I know there are many hardcore Christians on this site. I don't want to enter into a debate/fight with anyone simply because I've already found a different, and more appropriate site for that. <Ohiochessfan>You might want to read this.. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id... BTW I really don't like it when some people just pick out random quotes from a tome, and interpret it in their own way. If you're really interested in debunking the evoultionary theory its better you start here.. Darwin's original papers..
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
|
|
| Dec-01-08 | | hitman84: Also I should mention that although I'm an atheist, I have nothing against people who belong to one faith or the other as long as they understand the true meaning of their respective religions, and are able to revise them periodically with advancement of scientific knowledge. Also they should preach Religious Tolerance. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: <hitman> I try to tread very lightly in the matter. There's a time and a place for everything. This is first and foremost a chess site so I don't venture often into the religious field.
As for religion, it's all about truth with me. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: My take on Jesus and the woman caught in adultery:
Here's the incident under discussion.
John 8:3-6 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: What did the scribes and Pharisees mean when they referred to Moses in the law? Here's two of the more important discussions from Moses and the law on that matter: Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:6-7 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: Jesus was in complete obedience to the law of Moses. In no way did he violate that law in this circumstance. I will note some points worthy of consideration: 1. Where was the man? In fact, the law said the man and the woman were to be stoned, but the crowd brought only the woman. THEY were in fact trying to violate the law by only charging one of the two guilty parties. 2. Jesus wasn't a witness to the act, so he could not have been an instigating agent in the stoning. Someone else had to start. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: Continuing in the account:
John 8:7-11 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: I have heard a number of preachers claim that the crowd left because Jesus was pointing out they had sins in their own lives. I think that's a real disservice to the passage. In fact, all people have some sin. That's understood. But there is still a command in the law of Moses for stoning adulterers. That command doesn't say "Oh, if you've ever sinned, you can't stone a person." The sin they were guilty of, and had a pained conscience for, was the mishandling of the situation at hand. They had failed to bring the man to judgment. In doing so, they were guilty of sin also. If it were the case they just felt guilty about the fact they'd sinned at some point in their life, it would be unique in Jesus' entire ministry that his adversaries seemed to have such a developed conscience. It was perhaps 2 years later these same people were putting Jesus to death. I must reject out of hand the claim that a simple appeal to the sins they had was enough to send the crowd away in pangs of remorse. No, he was appealing to the immediate situation where they were sinning right before him. |
|
Dec-01-08
| | OhioChessFan: < Also they should preach Religious Tolerance. > Why? |
|
| Dec-02-08 | | Travis Bickle: <OhioChessFan: Jesus was in complete obedience to the law of Moses. In no way did he violate that law in this circumstance. I will note some points worthy of consideration:
1. Where was the man? In fact, the law said the man and the woman were to be stoned, but the crowd brought only the woman. THEY were in fact trying to violate the law by only charging one of the two guilty parties. 2. Jesus wasn't a witness to the act, so he could not have been an instigating agent in the stoning. Someone else had to start.>
Ohio Im quite sure you know The Scripture much better than I, but that said I have a statement to make. Even if both guilty parties were brought to The Lord, Jesus would not have participated in any stoning. Lets not forget that Jesus Christ being sent into the world as God Almighty in the flesh was The New Testament and Moses law was from the Old Testament so Jesus The Redeemer and Saviour was the Good News and his ministry at that point was The New way if you will of Gods Commands. |
|
Dec-02-08
| | Open Defence: < OhioChessFan > but the concept of forgiveness and compassion rather than a brutal enforcement of the law shines out brutal enforcement only yields brutality
|
|
Dec-02-08
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <milli vanilli>
heh...
You know it's kind of funny since if you look on Youtube through the history of Pop music-- well you probably already know, but ALL OF IT WAS LIP SYNCED for like 15 years or more. I suspect more "live music" today is still LIP SYNCED than people would care to admit... Mrs. CGI Chinese Olympic "fireworks" |
|
Dec-02-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: Check this out- no Lip Sync here--
And look how the King can move- 1970--
"WE CAN'T GO ON, TOGETHER, WITH SUSPICIOUS MINDS..."
Play this one loud.
Nobody- and I mean nobody-- can "move" like the King
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=q04_C... |
|
Dec-02-08
| | Open Defence: erm....
James Brown...
*cough* *cough* |
|
Dec-02-08
| | Open Defence: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsX7...
is my fav |
|
Dec-02-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: Good lord I'm getting overstimulated watching this again... ABSOLUTELY THRILLING MAN |
|
| Dec-02-08 | | Artar1: <OhioChessFan: As for religion, it's all about truth with me.> I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. What truth are you hoping to find? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...