Chess and the True Christian...

[Keith&Co.]

So, the question seems to come up regularly with certain headlines, that the people identified in the story, or quoted under the picture, or jailed, or whatever, are not, in the opinion of some, true christains.

Sure, fine, whatever.

Ultimately, only God, should one exist, is going to be the actual decider of who is and isn't qualified to call themselves 'Christain' in His eyes. And if He doesn't exist, there's no objective value for what is truly a Christain.

Down here, in the real world, there are whole hosts of people calling themselves Christain. And for every single denomination, sect, flavor, or schism, there's at least one other host pointing at them and denying that.

So what does it really mean to be 'true' christain? Operationally, identifying someone as really being Christain just means that you agree with them.

I realized this when I found yet another blog that lauds "Chess: The Subtle Sin" (http://elephanticity.250x.com/xianches.html) as being a good source for Christains. It's a parody. It's MEANT as a parody. I know this because I'm the one who intended it as a padody. And also because I say ON THE PAGE that it's a parody. But people come across it, find that it says something that matches their needs, their agenda, so they accept it.

Others have perceived the satire involved (perhaps because, I don't know, they READ that?). Chess fans and D&D fans have included it in their blogs with tongue in cheek, or listing it as a response to 'Should Christains Play D&D?' screeds that make outrageous claims about fantasy games and fantasy gamers.

So from now on, when someone tries to tell me that someone in a media story isn't really Christain, I'm going to think of babbling fools that accept the idea "Checkmate = Human Sacrifice" as coming from a confirmed Christain.

 

[Underseer]

"True Christian" is just a signifier that someone is using a no true Scotsman fallacy.

First, let's not forget the elephant in the room. The reason separation of church and state is important is that without it, arguments about who is and isn't a real Christian often leads to Christians setting each other on fire. That would be a bad thing.

Anyway, I find that all Christians whether moderate or strident have incredibly flexible definitions of "Christian." Their definitions can change wildly mid-conversation based on rhetorical convenience. Need to use an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) fallacy? No problem. Use a more inclusive definition of "Christian" and now all those two billion Christians are supporting evidence for you logical fallacy.

Uh-oh. Did someone disprove your claim that Christianity causes people to become more moral? No problem! Just shift to a more exclusive and narrow definition of Christian so that you can use a no true Scotsman logical fallacy. Just keep changing your definition of "Christian" as the debate goes on based on whatever rhetorical convenience you need to support whatever you just said.

The weird thing is, I'm pretty sure none of them notice that they do this. I'm fairly certain that in their heads, they believe that they are being consistent in their definition and probably don't notice the sudden shifts in definition mid-conversation.

 

[Underseer]

Typography criticism: you could use more whitespace on the sides of that river of text.

 

[James Brown]

The only thing that all Christians can agree on is that the majority of the others are doing it wrong.

I know this from personal experience. The more serious I took my own faith, the more fault I found in other Christians. From that perspective, a "True Christian" is someone who acted and believed as I did. But it wasn't hard to find other Christians who took their own faith very seriously AND believed that I was deeply and sincerely wrong, even "going to Hell" wrong. Every Protestant denomination is the result of one Christian thinking that his own in-group was not practicing True Christianity.

Imagine if there was as many different methods of calculating algebra as there are different denominations of Christianity.

(Side note: Why are there not as many different denominations of, say, Islam? Or Hinduism? What is it about Christianity that seems to encourage splintering?)

 

[Lion IRC]

Pawn promotion isn't 'reincarnation'
The Pawn doesn't die on the back rank, it gets promoted.

 

[Lion IRC]

And if the King and Queen are "Secular Leaders" why are they ministered
on either side by Bishops?

 

[phands]

So, the question seems to come up regularly with certain headlines, that the people identified in the story, or quoted under the picture, or jailed, or whatever, are not, in the opinion of some, true christains.

Sure, fine, whatever.

Ultimately, only God, should one exist, is going to be the actual decider of who is and isn't qualified to call themselves 'Christain' in His eyes. And if He doesn't exist, there's no objective value for what is truly a Christain.

Down here, in the real world, there are whole hosts of people calling themselves Christain. And for every single denomination, sect, flavor, or schism, there's at least one other host pointing at them and denying that.

So what does it really mean to be 'true' christain? Operationally, identifying someone as really being Christain just means that you agree with them.

I realized this when I found yet another blog that lauds "Chess: The Subtle Sin" (http://elephanticity.250x.com/xianches.html) as being a good source for Christains. It's a parody. It's MEANT as a parody. I know this because I'm the one who intended it as a padody. And also because I say ON THE PAGE that it's a parody. But people come across it, find that it says something that matches their needs, their agenda, so they accept it.

Others have perceived the satire involved (perhaps because, I don't know, they READ that?). Chess fans and D&D fans have included it in their blogs with tongue in cheek, or listing it as a response to 'Should Christains Play D&D?' screeds that make outrageous claims about fantasy games and fantasy gamers.

So from now on, when someone tries to tell me that someone in a media story isn't really Christain, I'm going to think of babbling fools that accept the idea "Checkmate = Human Sacrifice" as coming from a confirmed Christain.

Is the 'ChristAin" spelling a mistake, or a reflection that xtianity is a stain on humanity?

 

[braces_for_impact]

If someone insists they're a Christian, I don't often have a reason to argue. Lately, I see the "No True Scotsman" fallacy a lot with regards to Christians in the context of supporting Donald Trump, or even more recently, his immigration policies. The media has jumped on this "true Christian" bullshit with great fervor. I like to be the stick in the mud to point out that Trump supporters and Klan members can be just as Christian as any other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is the 'ChristAin" spelling a mistake, or a reflection that xtianity is a stain on humanity?

Um, no.

On the SAB, one thumper spelled it 'athiest' every time. When corrected, he insisted that it didn't matter. So i stained at him, became a habit.

This was from the logical ninja who:
1. Insisted that evolution is a religion.
2. Demanded that all religions should be respected.
3. Choose the login name, 'evolutionisstupid'.
4. Could not follow accusations of hypocrisy.

 

[bigfield]

And if the King and Queen are "Secular Leaders" why are they ministered on either side by Bishops?

From the page:

I am and will remain truly pleased with those that link to this page, and quite happy with those that took the time to list rebuttals and otherwise refute the stance portrayed here. If nothing else, it validates my attempt to craft satire by being taken so seriously.

 

[Jobar]

The only thing that all Christians can agree on is that the majority of the others are doing it wrong.

I know this from personal experience. The more serious I took my own faith, the more fault I found in other Christians. From that perspective, a "True Christian" is someone who acted and believed as I did. But it wasn't hard to find other Christians who took their own faith very seriously AND believed that I was deeply and sincerely wrong, even "going to Hell" wrong. Every Protestant denomination is the result of one Christian thinking that his own in-group was not practicing True Christianity.

I've noticed that many Christian forums online are pits of infighting and insult- much worse than any atheist board, even ones that don't try to hose down flame wars and encourage civil disputation. I've also seen that Christians tend to be more vicious in their internecine virtual warfare than they are when they dispute with us atheists. I used to consider that rather puzzling; don't they have far more in common with each other, than they do with us frank unbelievers?

- - - Updated - - -

Is the 'ChristAin" spelling a mistake, or a reflection that xtianity is a stain on humanity?

Um, no.

On the SAB, one thumper spelled it 'athiest' every time. When corrected, he insisted that it didn't matter. So i stained at him, became a habit.

This was from the logical ninja who:
1. Insisted that evolution is a religion.
2. Demanded that all religions should be respected.
3. Choose the login name, 'evolutionisstupid'.
4. Could not follow accusations of hypocrisy.

Keith, I corrected the spelling in the thread title before I saw this. Want me to change it back?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I've noticed that many Christian forums online are pits of infighting and insult- much worse than any atheist board, even ones that don't try to hose down flame wars and encourage civil disputation. I've also seen that Christians tend to be more vicious in their internecine virtual warfare than they are when they dispute with us atheists. I used to consider that rather puzzling; don't they have far more in common with each other, than they do with us frank unbelievers?

- - - Updated - - -

Um, no.

On the SAB, one thumper spelled it 'athiest' every time. When corrected, he insisted that it didn't matter. So i stained at him, became a habit.

This was from the logical ninja who:
1. Insisted that evolution is a religion.
2. Demanded that all religions should be respected.
3. Choose the login name, 'evolutionisstupid'.
4. Could not follow accusations of hypocrisy.

Keith, I corrected the spelling in the thread title before I saw this. Want me to change it back?

No biggie...

 

[Lion IRC]

And if the King and Queen are "Secular Leaders" why are they ministered on either side by Bishops?

From the page:

I am and will remain truly pleased with those that link to this page, and quite happy with those that took the time to list rebuttals and otherwise refute the stance portrayed here. If nothing else, it validates my attempt to craft satire by being taken so seriously.

It says;
"...This makes it seem that someone playing chess, especially on the White Side, is acting out a morality play, attacking the forces of Darkness and crushing them under his heel.
..Evil has, mathematically, as much of a chance to win as Good."

Statistically white wins more often.
I don't think there's any chess opening which results in more black wins than white.
Bad news for the forces of evil.

 

[phands]

I've noticed that many Christian forums online are pits of infighting and insult- much worse than any atheist board, even ones that don't try to hose down flame wars and encourage civil disputation. I've also seen that Christians tend to be more vicious in their internecine virtual warfare than they are when they dispute with us atheists. I used to consider that rather puzzling; don't they have far more in common with each other, than they do with us frank unbelievers?

- - - Updated - - -

Um, no.

On the SAB, one thumper spelled it 'athiest' every time. When corrected, he insisted that it didn't matter. So i stained at him, became a habit.

This was from the logical ninja who:
1. Insisted that evolution is a religion.
2. Demanded that all religions should be respected.
3. Choose the login name, 'evolutionisstupid'.
4. Could not follow accusations of hypocrisy.

Keith, I corrected the spelling in the thread title before I saw this. Want me to change it back?

I figured that it could be deliberate because of the frequency. And yes, religion is utterly a stain on humanity.

 

[Lion IRC]

Anther problem is the power of the Queen.

The Queens power is over her subjects not her husband.

 

[steve_bank]

"Mongo just pawn in game of life"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Apparently there are true christians and there are treu christians.

If we drop christian it probably still makes for entertaining exchange. Are you true or are you treu? Inquiring minds want to know.

In the end christian is whatever a person wants it to be. To someone who wants it to be something else that person isn't true anymore.

True true true true. It's all about being true. One of the flavors of true is christian true.

 

[phands]

Which treu are you referring to? The German word for loyal/faithful/constant or the hipster affectation?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Which treu are you referring to? The German word for loyal/faithful/constant or the hipster affectation?

Just referring to the dumbery that is true christian. Didn't know there was a minefield to walk into.

 

[Lion IRC]

Do non-Christians exist? Yes.
Surely they aren't true Christians.

No true Christian is an atheist - this isn't the NTS fallacy. This is the law of excluded middle.

/derail
Now can we get back to the chess topic?