09 Jul 04
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlHell, it's the only reason I do just about anything. 😀
I like the sexual innuendo in chess. I like the sexual innuendo in anything . 😀
Yeah, yeah, mentally stimulating, yeah, whatever. I'm still waiting for Russ to make a chess board that you have to be 18 to use. 😉
10 Jul 04
Originally posted by bbarrI think it is just God the Father (not to be confused with The Godfather) who is supposed to be omniscient. Else why would Jesus ask on the cross 'why have you abandoned me?' if he was omniscient he would either know that he hadn't in fact been abandoned (the orthodox reading) or he would know the reason why. i don't think the relation between the persons of the trinity is one of somple identity, else why would they be distinguished?
Since Christ is God, and God is Omniscient, Christ is Omniscient. Thus, before any proposed game, Christ would know who would win. Assuming Christ wants to win, it follows that He would only accept games he has forseen Himself winning. Hence, if you find yourself playing Christ, your loss is assured.
10 Jul 04
Jesus is obviously not unbeatable (read the bible if you don't believe me) but he will always ressurect again... just as your queen moves into the check mate position, a flash of gold light blinds you and you find yourself facing the king again... this would probably make any game with jesus very tedious and the end result would undoubtably be a draw.
conclusion - don't play chess with jesus.
10 Jul 04
Originally posted by padfootYou er. HIS death is the victory and satan's doom.
Jesus is obviously not unbeatable (read the bible if you don't believe me) but he will always ressurect again... just as your queen moves into the check mate position, a flash of gold light blinds you and you find yourself facing the king again... this would probably make any game with jesus very tedious and the end result would undoubtably be a draw.
conclusion - don't play chess with jesus.
10 Jul 04
Originally posted by dfm65I thought that the undead Christ wouldn't be subject to your run-of-the-mill human's epistemic constraints. Perhaps you are right, and "is" of "Christ is God" isn't one of identity. What type of "is" is it, then? I tend to think of the trinity as like one of those 7-layer burritos from Taco Bell. The layers themselves are distinct (except for the bean and cheese layers, which tend to blend), yet together they form one thing, the burrito (which is, thus, a mereological sum).
I think it is just God the Father (not to be confused with The Godfather) who is supposed to be omniscient. Else why would Jesus ask on the cross 'why have you abandoned me?' if he was omniscient he would either know that he hadn't in fact been abandoned (the orthodox reading) or he would know the reason why. i don't think the relation between the persons of the trinity is one of somple identity, else why would they be distinguished?
10 Jul 04
Originally posted by bbarrYou are absoluetely correct that Christ is/was not bound by any constraints. The concept of the triune god is the Christ was both fully man and fully god. Father, son, and holy spirit fully all three at all times. Again, the concept of infinity being the key to this understanding, and further that the moment you limit anything infinite it ceases to be infinite and all further speculation is irrelevant as the subject has lost its original properties.
I thought that the undead Christ wouldn't be subject to your run-of-the-mill human's epistemic constraints. Perhaps you are right, and "is" of "Christ is God" isn't one of identity. What type of "is" is it, then? I tend to think of the trinity as like one of those 7-layer burritos from Taco Bell. The layers themselves are distinct (except for the b ...[text shortened]... to blend), yet together they form one thing, the burrito (which is, thus, a mereological sum).
10 Jul 04
Originally posted by dfm65Ever hear of a rhetorical question? The distinction between the identities of the triune god are only relevant if you are concerned with the concept of salvation by grace. If Christ was not fully god the entire time he walked the Earth, then there is no salvation by grace. Likewise with any other comparison of the triune god identities. If any one is not also the other two at the same time, then salvation by grace premise is faulty. Back to your earlier point however, the Christ clearly states in the book of John that he is god, pure and simple.
I think it is just God the Father (not to be confused with The Godfather) who is supposed to be omniscient. Else why would Jesus ask on the cross 'why have you abandoned me?' if he was omniscient he would either know that he hadn't in fact been abandoned (the orthodox reading) or he would know the reason why. i don't think the relation between the persons of the trinity is one of somple identity, else why would they be distinguished?
11 Jul 04
Originally posted by OmnislashPerhaps that is true in theology. But in mathematics it may not be. For instance, in Cantor's theory of cardinals, aleph-null and aleph-one are both infinite cardinalities, but aleph-null is most definitely a smaller infinity than aleph-one. So in that sense it would be permissible to say that aleph-null has been "limited," to use your term, but nevertheless aleph-null keeps its original properties and remains truly infinite.
the moment you limit anything infinite it ceases to be infinite and all further speculation is irrelevant as the subject has lost its original properties.
(To which maybe you say: Who cares?) 😛
11 Jul 04
Well, at the risk of being "flamed and/or moderated off the site " the only people really qualified to realistically offer any serious challenge to "GOD" in terms of a chess match, can only fall to players of the Jewish faith.
Why is that? After the Jewish Religious Council successfully negotiated the crucifixion of Jesus with the Romans, (and since then the Jewish people as a whole have been in a state of denial), they now feel that any percieved and/or real challenge to his power is on the basis of "a shot to nothing" as none of them, as a people, will ever pass into Heaven, so they as a desperate people take on desperate tasks.
skeeter
11 Jul 04
Originally posted by skeeterDid you have a Jewish nurse maid when you were a child or something? What's with the chip on your shoulder about jews? So there ancesters did bad. So did yours and mine.
Well, at the risk of being "flamed and/or moderated off the site " the only people really qualified to realistically offer any serious challenge to "GOD" in terms of a chess match, can only fall to players of the Jewish faith.
Why is that? After the Jewish Religious Council successfully negotiated the crucifixion of Jesus with the Romans, (and since t ...[text shortened]... l ever pass into Heaven, so they as a desperate people take on desperate tasks.
skeeter
11 Jul 04
Originally posted by skeeter?
Well, at the risk of being "flamed and/or moderated off the site " the only people really qualified to realistically offer any serious challenge to "GOD" in terms of a chess match, can only fall to players of the Jewish faith.
Why is that? After the Jewish Religious Council successfully negotiated the crucifixion of Jesus with the Romans, (and since t ...[text shortened]... l ever pass into Heaven, so they as a desperate people take on desperate tasks.
skeeter
11 Jul 04
Originally posted by marinakatombSee, still in denial by virtue of the fact that you will not address the arguement but instead chose to vilify the poster. Typical.
Did you have a Jewish nurse maid when you were a child or something? What's with the chip on your shoulder about jews? So there ancesters did bad. So did yours and mine.
skeeter
11 Jul 04
Originally posted by skeeterYour argument is as such:
See, still in denial by virtue of the fact that you will not address the arguement but instead chose to vilify the poster. Typical.
skeeter
Because Jews are in denial they are suited to beat God at chess??
I've never heard so much bollocks since this morning, when I heard Sharon on the TV.