Faith-Hope-Lies

Originally posted by Mixo
I take your point but when a player joins a clan which is loudly proclaiming a Christian ethos, and maybe even chooses a username which emphasises it e.g. "praisethelord" (apologies if that is a real player, I just made it up) and THEN goes on to use a chess engine to cheat, it becomes a particular kind of hypocrisy. Wal-mart shoppers are not making a claim about their moral values in this way.

Ah yes, it is a sad situation and I see how it can look like they are hypocrites. I am also a Christian and I do sin, in fact every Christian sins, because of our very nature.

Being a Christian does not mean that you no longer sin (any Christian that says that would be incorrect and a hypocrite since they would be sinning) it only means that though you do sin, Jesus has paid the price for them.

So it is unfortunate that someone would cheat in chess, perhaps it is a pride issue (could be anything) but that does not make them a hypocrite only all the more human, which all Christians are, we are not perfect.

I would say that the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that a Christian should be able to recognise that he or she is sinning and work towards no longer doing so, even if they keep messing it up each time they try… but they should try. A Christian should never accept sin with a statement like “it doesn’t matter” or “it is too hard” etc.

Originally posted by Mixo
The Faith Hope Love clan has the worst record for cheating. What does this say about evangelists on RHP?

How do you know, and what link does it have on all Christians? I don't cheat, and if you saw my rating you would having no problem believing that. Just because 10 or so do doesn't mean we all do.

Originally posted by Acemaster
How do you know, and what link does it have on all Christians?

I suspect it because some of them have been banned for cheating. Of course it doesn't apply to ALL christians - I never said that! The vast majority live decent lives and are honest folk. Evangelists are those who put themselves forward as righteous role models - wearing their religion like a badge (by making their clan look like a gang of apostles) but not actually living the values Jesus preached.

Being honest is easy. Some people in this forum find it hard and appear to use christianity as the get-out-of-jail-free-card!

Originally posted by ryunix
I would say that the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that a Christian should be able to recognise that he or she is sinning

Apparently, so can Russ.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Apparently, so can Russ.

I don’t know who "Russ" is. But to make my point more clear. If you believe in Sin, which is a Christian concept, then naturally you would convict yourself of it and do your earnest to stay away from committing it. However if you simply understand the Christian concept of sin, you will see no need to turn from it since you don’t believe it to be wrong.

An example is how I understand the theory of evolution but am not convicted of it, thus my actions are not determined by it. If I did believe in the theory of evolution, my actions would be determined by it. (Not solely determined, but you get the idea)

The same example can but used for God, or Meat etc

When I use the word "recognizing sin" I’m not referring just to understanding sin, but rather, a belief in sin which would come from being a Christian.

Originally posted by ryunix
An example is how I understand the theory of evolution but am not convicted of it, thus my actions are not determined by it. If I did believe in the theory of evolution, my actions would be determined by it. (Not solely determined, but you get the idea)

In point of fact, if you disbelieve the theory of evolution, you clearly do not understand it (or you live in a fantasy world where science has no credibility). I'm not certain how your actions would be determined by it, in either case, however. It is science, not a philosophy of life.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In point of fact, if you disbelieve the theory of evolution, you clearly do not understand it (or you live in a fantasy world where science has no credibility). I'm not certain how your actions would be determined by it, in either case, however. It is science, not a philosophy of life.

As per usual, we hit a tangent.

To use your argument: If you disbelief that I like pizza, you clearly do not understand me. If you disbelief that there is no God you clearly do not understand him etc.

Science states “facts” that change all the time. Science is a self correcting process which is the beauty of it and one of the ways it is corrected is with new information which challenges old information.

If science currently states something that does not in of it self make it true. So I don’t see how not accepting something that is currently still a theory i.e. evolution, or to be precise macro evolution, makes someone live in a fairytale land.

Of course you know this... So I really don’t understand your point 😛

As for the comment about how your actions are determined by your belief... well I know of no other way to explain it other then your post reeks of it.

Originally posted by ryunix
If science currently states something that does not in of it self make it true. So I don’t see how not accepting something that is currently still a theory i.e. evolution, or to be precise macro evolution, makes someone live in a fairytale land.

Science never gets beyond theory. It must be well established to acquire that status. Evolution is not only a theory, it is one of very few theories that are foundational to nearly all of science. There have been hardly any medical breakthroughs in the past half-century (a time characterized by medical breakthroughs) that would have been possible without the insights of evolutionaryt theory and related developments.

But, of course, you know that. You know that unless your skeptimism is rooted in the confusion of facts, terms, and scientific method that is standard fare for creationists, in which case my allegation is closer to the mark than I first thought.

I'm not certain it is that much of a tangent. The simplistic, black and white thinking that enables disavowal of modern science in favor of such utter nonsense as creationism is not surprising among those with certain dogmatic beliefs (and FHL have several members that have proven themselves mindlessly dogmatic in these very forums). It is surprising to see such absence of intellectual flexibility among strong chess players. Perhaps, I've stumbled into a hypothesis here that merits testing.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Science never gets beyond theory. It must be well established to acquire that status. Evolution is not only a theory, it is one of very few theories that are foundational to nearly all of science. There have been hardly any medical breakthroughs in the past half-century (a time characterized by medical breakthroughs) that would have been possible without the ...[text shortened]... among strong chess players. Perhaps, I've stumbled into a hypothesis here that merits testing.

Sigh *buckles in for the tangential ride*



Science never gets beyond theory. It must be well established to acquire that status. Evolution is not only a theory, it is one of very few theories that are foundational to nearly all of science. There have been hardly any medical breakthroughs in the past half-century (a time characterized by medical breakthroughs) that would have been possible without the insights of evolutionaryt theory and related developments.

Ok and? I am not disagreeing with this.

But, of course, you know that. You know that unless your skeptimism is rooted in the confusion of facts, terms, and scientific method that is standard fare for creationists, in which case my allegation is closer to the mark than I first thought.

We still have not established what makes me confused other then our different point of view. Though you disagree with me, and I with you; I can’t see that as establishing either of us as confused.

I'm not certain it is that much of a tangent. The simplistic, black and white thinking that enables disavowal of modern science in favor of such utter nonsense as creationism is not surprising among those with certain dogmatic beliefs (and FHL have several members that have proven themselves mindlessly dogmatic in these very forums). It is surprising to see such absence of intellectual flexibility among strong chess players. Perhaps, I've stumbled into a hypothesis here that merits testing.

Ok so we agree it is a tangent… that is a start 🙂 and to continue such a good start, lets agree that we should not disavowal modern science unless there are errors, which of course get discovered by challenging it or discovering new things. Though I personally don’t view creationism as nonsense I will admit that some Christians and non Christians simply deny science altogether.

So hopefully this tangent is done since we have so much in common that we can carry on with intellectual flexibility 🙂

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Science never gets beyond theory. It must be well established to acquire that status. Evolution is not only a theory, it is one of very few theories that are foundational to nearly all of science. There have been hardly any medical breakthroughs in the past half-century (a time characterized by medical breakthroughs) that would have been possible without the ...[text shortened]... among strong chess players. Perhaps, I've stumbled into a hypothesis here that merits testing.

If you don't mind, what is 'FHL'?

Oh by the way, this is a good post.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
If you don't mind, what is 'FHL'?

Oh by the way, this is a good post.

The Faith Hope Love clan

Originally posted by ryunix
We still have not established what makes me confused other then our different point of view. Though you disagree with me, and I with you; I can’t see that as establishing either of us as confused.

You're correct. I don't know for certain that you are a creationist. The comments were not directed at you, but at the majority of those posting in these forums that aim to dispute the theory of evolution.

(I usually avoid this forum, but when I visit, I generally get caught up in some squabbles with Creationists. After a few days, I quit reading and posting. Refuting their arguments is not difficult; getting through with reason to those that are thoroughly brainwashed seems impossible.)

Originally posted by ckoh1965
If you don't mind, what is 'FHL'?

Oh by the way, this is a good post.

Gracias.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
You're correct. I don't know for certain that you are a creationist. The comments were not directed at you, but at the majority of those posting in these forums that aim to dispute the theory of evolution.

(I usually avoid this forum, but when I visit, I generally get caught up in some squabbles with Creationists. After a few days, I quit reading and post ...[text shortened]... icult; getting through with reason to those that are thoroughly brainwashed seems impossible.)

Well to be truthful i am a creationist, i suppose. I believe in the bible fully so i am put into that category right? 🙂

If you would like to talk about it over a game of chess, forget it... you would destroy me *laughs* i saw your rating 😲

Originally posted by ryunix
Well to be truthful i am a creationist, i suppose. I believe in the bible fully so i am put into that category right? 🙂

I know lots of people that believe the whole Bible, but are not Creationists. Evolution is not a problem to those well versed in ancient cultures, religious literature, and biblical languages. To literalists, however, it often proves a serious stumbling point.