[Event "Lions Cup KO S D005"]
[Site "SchemingMind.com"]
[Date "2010.08.16"]
[Round "-"]
[White "PeterLiberty"]
[Black "calidore"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B03t"]
[WhiteCountry "USA"]
[BlackCountry "ISR"]
[WhiteElo "1508"]
[WhiteRD "57"]
[BlackElo "1598"]
[BlackRD "73"]
[GameID "257768"]

{
PeterLiberty: I'm happy to meet you through this chess activity.  I expect we'll have interesting, exciting and challenging games.
}
1. e4 Nf6
{
calidore: good luck!
Where are you from the States?
}
{
PeterLiberty: Northwestern Wisconsin now.  I've traveled extensively in all 50 states, and quite a few foreign countries.  I've lived in about ten states.  I grew up in Northeastern Wisconsin about 300 kilometers from here.
}
2. e5 Nd5
{
calidore: wow, how old are you?
}
{
PeterLiberty: Older than Methuselah.
}
3. c4 Nb6
{
calidore: 961? like chess 960?
}
{
PeterLiberty: I only play regular chess--no variants.
}
4. d4 d6 5. exd6 cxd6
{
PeterLiberty: Ha--not many Americans know how old Methuselah was--I didn't catch that you said that because it was linked with the chess 960 comment!
}
6. Nc3 g6
{
calidore: )))
}
7. Be3 Bg7
{
calidore: I know about Metushelah because I read about him in the original! That's something most Americans can't do
}
{
PeterLiberty: I love the Torah, Writings and Prophets.  I'm a Christian and a Bible student. I've studied Hebrew and Greek, but I'm very rusty in both.  
}
8. Rc1
{
calidore: You have to live in Israel in order to get it in Hebrew. It is harder than Shakespeare to an Englishman. Well, if you are a Christian it's ok, no one is perfect))
}
8... O-O 9. b3 Nc6
{
PeterLiberty: We were created perfect, but chose to corrupt ourselves. The questions are: Is there a way to restoration.  What is it?
}
10. d5
{
calidore: We were not created perfect. You are not perfect if you have the possibility to corrupt yourself
}
10... Ne5
{
PeterLiberty: Well, what do the scholars have to say about Genesis 1:27? Did G-d create an imperfect image? Is He responsible for my mistakes?  And what do they say about Genesis 1:31? Was the man טוב or not? Did G-d goof up?
}
11. Be2
{
calidore: God created everything including evil. Who cares about the scholars? Don't have your opinion?
And scholars as usual diagree. Have you MArk Twain's "Letters form the earth"?
}
11... Bf5
{
PeterLiberty: Oh, I'm well aware that "the scholars" disagree. I gather you don't take traditional seriously. But there are differences between opionions! Some opinions carry a great deal more weight than others.  I don't give much credence to opininons held by those who won't test them against the opinions of others. You seem more inclined in chess to consider the opinions of "the scholars" than you seem inclined to consider the opinions of scholars with regard to issues that might affect your eternal destiny. I'm curious as to the reason you would might make that choice.
}
12. f4 Ned7
{
calidore: I've listened to many 
}
{
PeterLiberty: OK, well it doesn't make sense to me that a perfect God would create an imperfect world--that He would create such a tragic imperfection as evil.  It is much more rational for me to accept the premise that He created the world perfect, including human beings, that these beings would be complete in that they would also, with Him, possess true volitional choice to either do good or evil. That is a choice God himself has, but He will not do or create evil Himself because it is completely outside his nature.  To believe that God created all perfect, that the imperfections were brought about by the fall of man, and that they can only be repaired by a perfect God makes far more sense to me than the premise that God created evil also.  If that is the case the world is in a truly hopeless condition, with no God worthy of our trust.  God Himselfe would be the most duplicous being of all--a concept beyond my ability to contemplate or accept.   
}
13. Nf3 Rc8
{
calidore: that is the easiest thing to do- believe in what you can't understand
}
{
PeterLiberty: Are you claiming than that you understand the nature of God more perfectly than it is presented in His revelation of Himself in the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets, and as that revelation has been understood by Jewish generations of Jewish and Christian scholars?
}
{
PeterLiberty: Please note, that I'm appealing to logic, not to a lack of ability to understand.  I believe that God gave me the mind and the ability to understand Him at the level at which He chooses to reveal Himself.  To accept your premise would be to deny logic--to do just what you are apparently accusing me of doing.  I choose to believe what I do understand of the revelation of God--not what I do not understand.  If I were to accept your premise, I would have to reject what I understand in favor of a notion that makes no rational sense.  
}
{
calidore: No, I simply claim there is no God, because there is nothing perfect for one reason, and many others.
But when you read the bible in the original it is totally different than translation. There is play of words, many meanings, including double meanings, old language, and there are "mistakes" which nobody can understand. The bible is far from being perfect. The new testemony if very primitive in comaprison to the old original by the way...
How do you relate to Jews by the way? Do you think that God broke his promise to the Jewish people?
}
14. O-O Nc5
{
PeterLiberty: Now you're being inconsistent.  First, God created both good and evil--now He does not exist.  And don't try to appeal to the reading of the Bible in the original as somehow revealing the "play on words, many meanings, including double meanings, old language, and . . . 'mistakes' which nobody can understand" as somehow proving that the interpretations of scholars and Bible believers everywhere and in all time are ridiculous.  You will make of yourself a laughingstock with all serious bible scholars who accept the Word as the revelation of God.  Most so called "mistakes" and "mulitple meanings" are relatively easy to reconcile with serious study, and those that are truly enigmatic, will be reconciled when the Lord finally brings this age to a conclusion.  And, no, I do not believe that God broke His promises to Israel.  I believe all of His promises have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and that their fulfillment is being brought to fruitiion in this current day, and that the very existence of the modern state of Israel is evidence of that fact. 
}
15. Bxc5
{
calidore: Do you also believe God has a son?
I don't believe in God not just because of the bible but many other things.
We won't get into that, however.
Why do we need scholars (who are not wiser than let us say, Einstein, Hawking, Didro or other scholars)to understand what is written? If this was written by God for us to understand everyone should get it easily, but if not, then nobody should- that is logical.
Why would the bible be so complicated with contradictions that it would require scholars to study it? It shouldn't be like that.
The old testamnet never mentions Son of God, nor Jesus, Nor that We should no longer keep the laws of Sabbath, food etc.
If you believe in God fine, I have no problem with that, but there is no proof. Do you believe Jews are the chosen people?
And which Christian are you? Catholic? Protestant?
God is on in the old testament, not 3, by the way.
A good Rabbi can challenge any christian and prove that christianity is not genuine, but an invention, with no basis.
I have no problem with the new laws made by Jesus which explain that first we should rspect the law between men and then towards God. Here he is right. But I don't need religion nor scholars to teach me ethics. I understand ethics as a human being, and everyone should. Only when we understand and respect ethics we will achieve peace etc. 
What I meant in the beginning was that reading the bible in other languages in useless as reading Shakespeare in prose in Arabic. That is the only advantage Hebrew has.
Have you ever been exposed to oral law, though? Jewish I mean?
}
15... dxc5
{
PeterLiberty: I believe God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) in three persons, Father, Son and Spirit (not three Gods). (There is sparse direct testimony of this in both the Old and New Testaments, but the Christian doctrine does not conflict with the complete revelation of both Old and New Testaments taken as a whole).  I believe that the Old Testament Messianic expectations were fulfilled by the incarnation of the person of the Son of God.  I could not possibly understand the New Testament without the Old Testament.  I am not a scholar, and I can understand both the Old and New Testaments and so can countless others.  Jesus is the Greek version of the name "Joshua" (YHWH saves). There are many references to God as our Savior in the Old Testament. (II Samuel 22:3 e.g.) In Luke 4:14-30, it is recorded that Jesus read Isaiah 61:1-2 and proclaimed that he fulfilled that prophecy. You say that there is no proof of God.  That's not what Scripture says.  Creation itself declares his glory. (Psalm 19, Psalm 145 e. g.) The scholars to whom you appeal, philosophers and scientists, do not claim that God does not exist, as you are claiming.  See e. g. http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html Scientists look at the universe as a closed system (limited to sensory space/time stimuli--i. e., matter and energy).  The honest ones, like Hawking and Einstein admit that there may be a God at work outside the system.  The dishonest ones, like Francis Crick, the discoverer of the structure of DNA tells his followers that no matter how much this system looks like it was designed we must constantly remind ourselves that there is no designer. But the fact is that intelligent design is so evident and so complex in DNA that there is not enough time for random chance to create it in our known universe.  So Crick came up with another theory, that DNA was seeded here from some unknown universe.  What remarkable faith--with no basis whatsoever.  It takes much less faith for me to believe that a God infinite in all his qualities could create the universe and DNA than it would be for me to have faith in Crick's delusions.  So, you have no proof that God does not exist and I admittedly cannot prove that He does--I wouldn't even want to try.  I simply can find no other logical explanation for my existence!  In the universe of complex design I know, why should I accept your point of view?  Now, people can study the Bible from two presuppositional perspectives.  (1)A perspective similar to yours in which one presupposes that the Bible is not divinely inspired like any other book.  From such a perspective "contradictions" are seen as evidences of the validity of the presupposition. Why should they be investigated further to find a clarifying explanation, or to determine if they even exist, or if they do exist if they have any relevance to the message of the Bible.  (2) A perspective like mine that presupposes that the Bible is divinely inspired. Those who begin with such a perspective are soon able to recognize that the so-called "contradictions" do have clarifying and legitimate explanations, or have no real relevance to the message of Scripture. FYI many people have, through the centuries, made a serious study of the teachings of Scripture to prove that they are untrue and, failing in the attempt, have become believers.  You seem quite ready to be skeptical--what "contradictions" are convincing to you?  I've had these discussions with many people before and usually my interlocutors do not really have such contradictions in mind.  They are just an excuse for their unbelief.  I'm not suggesting that this is so for you, but if it is, your unbelief is on shaky ground indeed. You might try reading the Scripture, Old Testament and New, as if it were inspired and see if, in time, you are able to see the message from a different perspective.  It might even be enlightening.  I will turn now to your last assertion, that you "don't need religion or scholars to teach [you] ethics."  Why is that?  What is the source of ethics? I contend that their source is God Himself.  Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, "[God] has set eternity in the hearts of men,; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."  See also Deuteronomy 30:11-14. I believe it is for this very reason that Adam and Eve hid from God, and from each other behind skirts of fig leaves, and why sinners from all time have hidden from God.  We know right from wrong, because God has laid it on our hearts.  A random existence (evolutionary theory) can produce no ethic beyond "I'm stronger than you--get out of my way or die."  So were does your ethic for which you need no scholars, no God, no religious authority come? Might it not be because God exists, that He created you, and that he put his law upon your heart so that you would know right from wrong? By the way, Jesus did not make any new law.  He is the Law.  The Ten Commandments is the nature of God written for men in tablets of stone.  He said, he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.  That is in what is called the Sermon on the Mount, New Testament, Matthew chapters 5-7.  I suggest that you read it.  You will find that his teaching as recorded in that passage is chock full of Old Testament teachings. I believe we find שלןם only when our hearts are right with God. BTW, what "version" of Christian I am is irrelevant since what I believe is orthodox.  However, FYI, I am a Baptist.     
}
16. Bd3 Bxd3
{
calidore: Why would God appeare in 3 persons? It is never mentioned in the old testament!
Son of God? listen to yourself, how can God have a son? It's a human quality.
Yeshu in Hebrew, from Yehoshua...
Hawking said there was no God, aren't you updated?
Why should there be a designer? Only because we don't know how and don't understand everything?
Unknown universes are possible, but I doubt if they are our source. As I said you believe because it is easy to believe- No questions and it explains everything, hard to contradict (mysterious ways of God)
Scientists look at our system as a closed one because this is what we get through our senses, we can't do more than that for the while.
Randomality can produce anything since there are infinite options! Anything can be. I didn't say I believed in the big Bang, nor that it was all random, but it is logical. Maybe there was something esle we do not know (that is why we invented God, to explain everything and for the church to frighten the people).Jesus said that the Sabbath is not important which is a contradiction to one of the commandments. I read the new testament and found it very primitive in comparison to the old testament. 
Why do you think that catholics are wrong? or other versions of Christians? 
And the funniest: Jesus sacrificed himself to save humanity? Do you also believe in that?
}
{
PeterLiberty: I am listening to myself--and you also, and frankly, I'm making more sense.  Did you read the critique of Hawking that I sent you? It doesn't look like it. There is a Designer, because what is, that I can perceive with my senses, could not possibly exist by random chance. Sure there are infinite options--that makes the complexity of our universe all the more unlikely as a consequence of random chance.  Everytime something begins to take on an order, something bad will happen to bring disorder back into the mix.  Why is the Big Bang logical?  Where did the matter and energy for the Bang come from?  Jesus did not say the Sabbath was unimportant.  He said that the "scholars" of His time on earth misunderstood God's intentions in establishing the Sabbath.  How is the N.T. primitive?  That's a term without meaning without some definition.  Most Christians tend to see things the other way, that is, the O.T. is more "primitive". I don't think either are "primitive". It seems your are trying to put down the N.T. and can't come up with a way to legitimately do so without labeling it "primitive". I didn't say that Catholics or other versions of Christians are wrong. The suspicion that I do is a perversion of your own mind alone!!! I have great respect for many Catholic scholars, Augustine and Aquinas, to name but two.  I also have great respect for giants in other non-Catholic "versions" as will, Luther and Calvin to name two.  And I most certainly do believe in Jesus' sacrificial work of atonement.  Our sins require atonement.(Leviticus 17:11) But once again you misunderstand what you read, talk nonsense, and then rather than blame your own incompetence, you blame the text as "full of contradictions".  Jesus did not sacrifice Himself.  He was offered as a sacrifice by His Father, and being God Himself, submitted as the Lamb provided for our atonement by the Father. The whole event was pictured in an Old Testament event recorded in Genesis 22:1-18, where Abraham willingly offered his son, and God supplied his own lamb and saved Isaac.  By the way, in your last essay you asked me if I believe the Jews are God's chosen people.  I do indeed--God's chosen people to bless all the earth with "knowledge of the glory of the Lord." (Habakkuk 2:14) This passage, Genesis 22:15-18 reflects back to the call of Abram (Genesis 12:1-3) and all the way forward to the atoning work of the Messiah. Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 both proclaim this yet to be accomplished atoning work of Jesus, the Son of God.  From the human perspective, through his human genealogies through both mother and human father (not his natural father as He was begotten by the Spirit of a human mother) He is the Son of God.  I will only tell you what the word of God says:  "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'". We mock God at our own peril. 
}
17. Qxd3 e6 18. Rcd1
{
calidore: The Torah was written by God according to tradition, and according to what Jesus thought. The N.T. was written by man.
Only you can ask from God and God alone forgivness for your sins. Do you really think that God needs a sacrifice of someone else to forgive? That is primitive, and the text is plain. Offered as sacrifice? by God? that is logical???? The story with Abraham was merely to show that one should believe in God no matter what, and that God will accept no human sacrifice. In addition, the reader is warned from the beginning that God intended to test Abraham. No connection to Jesus at all.
Where does it say JEsus the son of God in the O.T.????
Can you tell me exactly?
To believe God has a son from a human mother is absurd!
}
18... exd5
{
PeterLiberty: What is the point of your argument?
}
19. Nxd5 Nxd5
{
calidore: That Christianity is fake, not real, primitive, and the only reason you are christian is because everyone esle around you is, you don't know anything else and you are, like many others, are a victim of determinism!
If you were born in China or Saudi Arabia the chances for you to become christian would be very low, don't you agree?
}
{
PeterLiberty: I got the part where you think Christianity is "fake, not real, primitive".  Unfortunately, you appear to be making the argument without a solid foundation other than your own subjective delusions.  FYI, my parents were not Christians, neither were most of their own families, very few people around me in my youth were committed Christians. Most had as little commitment to Christ as you appear to have to Jewish tradition. The fact is that your understanding of Christianity is what is "fake, not real, primitive". From this long discussion with you, your understanding of the teaching of both the Old Testament and the New is on the level of the adherents of the "cargo cults" to advanced civilization.  Determinism? Not a chance--at least not as you have defined the term. Are you aware, by the way, that there are large numbers of Chinese people now becoming Christians and that a growing number of Muslims are also.  I fear we are losing traction quickly in the west, but the world is indeed being blessed through God's chosen people through whom the Messiah has come. 
}
20. Qxd5 Qc7=
1/2-1/2

