15 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadif a religion makes the claim that is is from God, then there should at least be some evidence that the adherents who apply its teaching in their lives experience some spiritual benefit, for God teaches those to benefit themselves.
Please elaborate as I don't understand what you mean.
I suspect I don't know what you mean by 'truth', maybe a definition would help.
(Isaiah 48:17-18) “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.
if there is no benefit then why should you adopt its teaching? if there is no benefit then it has proven false to its own power, for it can do nothing for you and you would be as well as joining the chess club as the church. In fact if there is no tangible spiritual benefit you may argue that joining the chess club rather than that particular church may even be more beneficial for at least you will learn something, albeit , about chess.
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd here I thought this thread was about me. ðŸ˜
Henry Edward Bird
Mr. Bird is a man of extraordinary energy. He not merely delights in hard work, but he never fears to break fresh ground and wield unwonted weapons. Thus, during his long illness in 1890-1, when he had to spend several months in St Thomas's Hospital, suffering constant pain, and at times unable to move, he never lost heart, never ...[text shortened]... o exclaim, "How magnificent!".
from the "Knights and Kings of Chess", London, 1894[/b]
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut obviously that only applies to religions that teach that God claims there is a spiritual benefit to being a member. But your comments earlier in the thread appeared to be addressed to 'spiritual journeys' in general, whereas now you seem to be being much more specific (ie Christianity).
if a religion makes the claim that is is from God, then there should at least be some evidence that the adherents who apply its teaching in their lives experience some spiritual benefit, for God teaches those to benefit themselves.
I agree that whether the claims of a religion actually bear out is a good test for the validity of a religion.
15 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadmmm i dont think that i used to term, 'spiritual journey', it reeks of Eastern philosophy and is fairly vague, i mean, what does it mean? would you go on a journey without knowing how or where or why? a spiritual journey? where are you going? on a journey of discovery? where shall it take you? i do not know? how shall you get there? i do not know? what shall the outcome be? i do not know! why are you going? i cannot say!
But obviously that only applies to religions that teach that God claims there is a spiritual benefit to being a member. But your comments earlier in the thread appeared to be addressed to 'spiritual journeys' in general, whereas now you seem to be being much more specific (ie Christianity).
I agree that whether the claims of a religion actually bear out is a good test for the validity of a religion.
saying that the criteria is a good indicator, what criteria would you have?
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCompared to fear of ever lasting hell, I would say atheism is far more appealing.
Lol, now that is funny. One must ask however, what atheism would have to offer? there are no Holy Books are there? No restoration promises? No appeal to an everlasting earthly paradise, how could it lift ones spirit?
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by lauseyyes yes, but it is not a biblical teaching, sorry to disappoint you. Hell is a corruption of the corresponding Hebrew and Greek words for the common grave of mankind, so you see my dear Lausey, you are arguing for a non biblical belief and then comparing it to an atheistic one. If you want to know what the Bible actually states as to the condition of the dead, please consider this verse,
Compared to fear of ever lasting hell, I would say atheism is far more appealing.
(Ecclesiastes 9:5-6) For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.
if there is no consciousness in death, then there can be no pain, comforting, isn't it, 🙂
23 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei don't know if such a study has been done for chessplayers, but here are the numbers for scientists (in america, 1968) : only 7% did believe in a personal god. Which is about the exact opposite of the american population (aout 90% believers).
aye you dont see the greatest chess players in the history of the game turning to atheism to have their spirits lifted, do yah!
Robbie Carrobie, Henry Bird and Bobby Fischer 1
Noobster and the other athiests 0
🙂
Similarly studies have shown an overall negative correlation between religious belief and level of instruction (and also with interest for science, political liberalism, and even IQ, for what i's worth)
I suppose it has to be the same for chess...
23 Feb 10
Originally posted by shorbockI myself have never really understood the point of this argument, for what does it purport to be saying? In fact it seems to me to be quite useless. For example, what of those who are very well versed in theological ideas, are we to state that those who are not, but perhaps in some other discipline excel are less well instructed? No then why state it for those who are religiously instructed in comparison to those who are not? I myself have studied scripture and things of a religious nature for fifteen years, i dare say that i know more of the Bible than you, but it hardly makes you less instructed than me does it, just in that particular discipline. We have only seventy or eighty years, it is not possible to learn and know everything?
i don't know if such a study has been done for chessplayers, but here are the numbers for scientists (in america, 1968) : only 7% did believe in a personal god. Which is about the exact opposite of the american population (aout 90% believers).
Similarly studies have shown an overall negative correlation between religious belief and level of instruction (an ...[text shortened]... cal liberalism, and even IQ, for what i's worth)
I suppose it has to be the same for chess...
Secondly, the greatest scientific advancements have been made by those who were religious, Newton was an excellent theologian, in fact he was more a theologian than he was a scientist. Why is that aspect of his character never portrayed?
what of other studies that show a positive correlation between religious belief and happiness? How are we to account for that? Or religious belief and sense of purpose?
Thus it comes down to an individual basis, Fischer had a tremendous IQ yet he had a profound belief in God and loved to read scripture as well. How are we to interpret these statistical studies in his case?