Today we feel immortal, as exemplified by the common saying "life is too short..." (followed by whatever the point is.) To me that's absurd. Human life is way too long, extending way beyond "necessary" (i.e. beyond the end of our reproductive years. Few species can claim that.)

I texted the guy who spoke and asked him to give me a quick review of what he said. It really was an eye opener for me and I want to do it justice. If I don't hear back, I'll do my best to recreate the point.

<Do you think the decline in religiosity is a consequence of our extended lifespans?>

I think that is a contributing factor. I can't prove this, but I strongly believe a large number of people who grow up in religious households sincrely think they'll spend their growing up years sowing their wild oats, and then come back to the approrpriate Godly lifestyle they've been taught. In my college years, I often heard people say, "College is all about sowing your wild oats, or having a good time before you get out in the rat race, or your last time to have some fun and freedom, etc." The sad fact is, when you decide to become a prodigal, you often don't come back.

<When people lived on average 27-28 years (most of human history, up until the industrial revolution, when lifespans began to slowly increase), mortality was more of an everyday event. It must have been in their minds a lot more often than now.>

I agree there, and think my previous comment enters into it also. I had a friend who was in the church in his college years and struggling with it. He admittedly wanted to live the wild lifestyle you might associate with college and think inappropriate for a Christian. He got a job one summer as a grave digger. He told me what an impact it had on him to realize that one day it'd be someone else digging his own grave.

<And therefore, the thought of meeting their maker anytime must have been common. This thought would have encouraged spiritual awareness, I speculate.>

I think part of it is they simply didn't have the income and accompanying toys to distract them from the bigger picture/philosophical side of life. I continue to be stunned at the thought many people live their entire life with no underlying philosophical viewpoint other than accumulating as many toys as possible. I kind of get Thoreau in a big way.

<Today we feel immortal, as exemplified by the common saying "life is too short..." (followed by whatever the point is.)>

Agreed, and that is encouraged by medical life lengthening developments. I think a very large proportion of people really do think "I'll have to get back to God/Church/Christianity some day"..........and just never get around to it.

<To me that's absurd. Human life is way too long, extending way beyond "necessary" (i.e. beyond the end of our reproductive years. Few species can claim that.) >

About "sowing one's wild oats" (I didn't know the expression!)... Now that I have had plenty of exposure to Judaism (my wife is Jewish, I was raised Catholic), I have to say that I quite admire (and feel comfortable with, though I am not converting) Judaism's emphasis on how we are supposed to live (all those rules included!) with no concern whatsoever for the afterlife. My understanding is that the idea of hell and heaven was introduced by Jesus. Concern with the afterlife can lead to calculations such as the sowing your wild oats thing. The Christian salvation may feel like a cost-benefit analysis and, because we live long lives now, there is always time to catch up (or so it seems).

I also believe that the emphasis on how we are supposed to live rather than how to "invest" (in salvation credits) leads to stronger communities. Tighter-knit, stronger communities (religious or not) tend to have more (and more stringent) rules, explicit or not. (This explains unfortunate outcomes too, like the appeal of cults.)

Perhaps the widespread attrition from Christianity during people's young years is because Christian teaching unwisely emphasizes the afterlife story, encouraging an individualistic approach ("what do I have to do to save myself?") For most of human history, this may have made sense (again, because death was much more menacing, real and present), so that individual interest would lead to an orderly, civil society. But teaching people to be good "or else..." is a weak approach to morality, IMHO.

<Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.>

Matthew interprets that verse as meaning physical healing.

<When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.">

Peter interpreted it as spiritual healing:

<“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”>

I read an interesting article on that, written by an unbeliever, but with respect shown to both sides. He got to much the same point as you do, that is, doing good for the sake of doing good and not in anticipation of a reward seems a bit more admirable or truly indicative of love, or something similar.

<My understanding is that the idea of hell and heaven was introduced by Jesus.>

No, but he focused on them to a far larger degree than the Old Testament writers did. Even among the major Jewish groups of Jesus' day, there was much disagreement on the matter. I just finished a book on the historical period between the Old and New Testaments, and it was fascinating to see the various belief systems.

< Concern with the afterlife can lead to calculations such as the sowing your wild oats thing.>

Yep, yep.

<The Christian salvation may feel like a cost-benefit analysis and, because we live long lives now, there is always time to catch up (or so it seems).>

Yep, yep.

<I also believe that the emphasis on how we are supposed to live rather than how to "invest" (in salvation credits) leads to stronger communities. >

Ummmmm. Yep, maybe, maybe not. I get your point though.

< Tighter-knit, stronger communities (religious or not) tend to have more (and more stringent) rules, explicit or not. (This explains unfortunate outcomes too, like the appeal of cults.)>

Mostly agreed.

<Perhaps the widespread attrition from Christianity during people's young years is because Christian teaching unwisely emphasizes the afterlife story, encouraging an individualistic approach ("what do I have to do to save myself?")>

I would hesitate to call what God has ordained something done "unwisely". As one direct example, Romans 2:7 says <To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.>

<For most of human history, this may have made sense (again, because death was much more menacing, real and present), so that individual interest would lead to an orderly, civil society. But teaching people to be good "or else..." is a weak approach to morality, IMHO.>

I'll stick with what God has revealed on that one.

<P.S. I am not particularly religious, but I am fascinated by religion. When people ask me if I believe in God, I answer "I don't know if God exists, but I talk to him.">

Matthew's approach has its appeal, and I like it because of its emphasis on the today.

"Physical healing was not the end game for Jesus. He did not heal everyone or just those who had faith. He did it to glorify God and bring people to him. We have a role in the church to be a part of bringing people to Jesus for healing."

One must ingratiate oneself with management when living on the edge.

<And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.>

What this tells us is that it's not important to be eloquent, more than that: using fancy words and such is not at all desirable, it only derails us from what is the essence of prayer, which is basically a sinner's plea to God for His grace and mercy. It is not a magical incantation of any sorts, it's simply the human response to the divine Gospel, our side of an endless conversation with God.

1. Magnus Carlsen 2845
2. Liren Ding 2812
3. Anish Giri 2797
4. Shakhriyar Mamedyarov 2790
5. Viswanathan Anand 2779
6. Alexander Grischuk 2771
7. Teimour Radjabov 2756
8. Sergey Karjakin 2753
9. Veselin Topalov 2740
10. David Navara 2739

Avg. Rating 2778 - Category XXII

**********

Schedule

Round 1: March 31st, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 2: April 1st, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 3: April 2nd, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 4: April 3rd, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 5: April 4th, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)

Rest day: April 5th

Round 6: April 6th, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 7: April 7th, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 8: April 8th, 13:00 CEST (7:00 AM EDT)
Round 9: April 9th, 12:00 CEST (6:00 AM EDT)

Welcome to the Gashimov Memorial 2019 Moves Prediction Contest. This contest involves picking a game result (1-0 1/2 or 0-1) and the number of moves in the game. As an example, if in the first round game you think Ding with White will draw Carlsen in 40 moves, your entry would say:

Ding - Carlsen 1/2 40

**Note. I haven't seen the pairings up. I just picked two players at random to demonstrate.

While it is a bit more complicated than the game prediction contest hosted by <GoldenExecutive> it isn't <that> much more complicated. I think my profile as written by <chessmoron> does a pretty good job explaining how things work.

A few odds and ends. Scoring mistakes occasionally happen. Let <chessmoron> know, on this forum. Quickly. For heaven's sake, don't ask <OhioChessFan> to try to fix it!

User: memphis

User: kan

User: test

User: question