[helene_t]

We had a player in Amsterdam who would always do the cross gesture when taking a finesse.

[Fluffy]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-30, 06:56, said:

We had a player in Amsterdam who would always do the cross gesture when taking a finesse.

This praying for someting that has already been settled (lie out of the cards) but its unknown to me is also interesting. It seems to be useless even if god was listening, but there is no reason why god wouldn't be able to foresee that you were going to pray for that and change how the cards would be shuffled beofre. Also on a Truman-Show enviroment RHO could have 14 cards and make the finesse work or not depending on you praying or not.

On a side note when I do teaching tables on BBO I let my students win offside finesses when it is right to take them for positive reinforcement. You could say that as the master/host of the teaching table I have some powers that make me "god" of the table.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2014-October-30, 06:18, said:

Because I am aware that if I did that I would be askng for god to fill me with joy at the expense of others, which its one of the most selfish things I can think of. And it hurts me to see other people not realicing it. Or maybe I am scared that god listens to them which would make god very different from what I think of.

I like this quote by CS Lewis:

Quote

[when I pray] It doesn't change God- it changes me.

But keep in mind that the Jewish/Christian God did, after all, authorise frequent massacres and mass rapes, so favouring some people over others is definitely his stock-in-trade.

[Winstonm]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-30, 08:22, said:

I like this quote by CS Lewis:



But keep in mind that the Jewish/Christian God did, after all, authorise frequent massacres and mass rapes, so favouring some people over others is definitely his stock-in-trade.

Worse yet, if your finesse fails it is due to your own lack of faith, not that god wouldn't listen. Of perhaps your opponent had more faith?

[WellSpyder]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-30, 06:56, said:

We had a player in Amsterdam who would always do the cross gesture when taking a finesse.

Is it ethical to do this if you are hoping the finesse will lose?

[mike777]

I love that old CS Lewis quote about prayer being about changing ourselves rather than God.

I can understand getting a bit ticked off about praying for selfish things for ourselves but at least it is a start in believing in something greater than themselves. Sure we are a sinner and hypocrite in our lives and at times in our prayers.


Side note the RCC and the Pope just reaffirmed it's believe in science, the scientific method and evolution. They are not incompatible with the Church.

[akwoo]

 mike777, on 2014-October-30, 14:49, said:

Side note the RCC and the Pope just reaffirmed it's believe in science, the scientific method and evolution. They are not incompatible with the Church.

Sorry, pet peeve here:

The RCC can't affirm (or deny) anything of this sort. (The Pope certainly can.) The RCC is a big, diverse collection of people who have different beliefs about anything and everything. Moreover, it intends to stay that way; it's not some tiny Protestant denomination where one half kicks out the other half every time someone coughs.

We can say the Pope believes something. We can say, in this case, that a 2/3 majority of the bishops in a certain appointed council believe something. But the RCC as a whole is (intentionally!) too diverse and fractious to believe anything except maybe that God exists and has something to do with the Bible.

[Trinidad]

 akwoo, on 2014-October-31, 16:28, said:

Sorry, pet peeve here:

The RCC can't affirm (or deny) anything of this sort. (The Pope certainly can.) The RCC is a big, diverse collection of people who have different beliefs about anything and everything. Moreover, it intends to stay that way; it's not some tiny Protestant denomination where one half kicks out the other half every time someone coughs.

We can say the Pope believes something. We can say, in this case, that a 2/3 majority of the bishops in a certain appointed council believe something. But the RCC as a whole is (intentionally!) too diverse and fractious to believe anything except maybe that God exists and has something to do with the Bible.

I think your pet peeve is a little misguided. There is no doubt that Roman catholics all over the world have their own believes that are not always aligned with what the Pope believes.

However, the RCC is an organization that is very hierarchical and theology is delivered top-down. Simply put: Everybody is supposed to believe what the Pope believes, but unfortunately, the flesh is weak and Catholics are human too, so some deviations are tolerated.

This is very different in the organization of most protestant churches. Protestants are very much responsible for their own believes, which is why there are so many different protestant churches: When the differences of opinion are getting too large, the church simply splits up, with each individual member making a personal decision. The organization is bottom-up: Local church members decide on theology and they will find a minister that is willing to preach it. The national organization of a protestant church is more of a federation that takes advantage of similar interests of individual churches and facilitates. It certainly doesnot force a theology on them.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-01, 18:37, said:

I think your pet peeve is a little misguided.

Yes, I am very surprised that anyone would hold the opinion the previous poster suggests.

[akwoo]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-01, 18:37, said:

However, the RCC is an organization that is very hierarchical and theology is delivered top-down. Simply put: Everybody is supposed to believe what the Pope believes, but unfortunately, the flesh is weak and Catholics are human too, so some deviations are tolerated.

Hmm - this is different from what I see.

I see a Catholic church that is very tolerant of people who disagree with the Pope, that argues amongst itself, a church where, partly by design and party by historical happenstance, Rome has very little actual power, as much as it occasionally likes to bluster.

Remember the LCWR mess, where Rome complained about them? LCWR basically said, "Go ahead, make our day," except a little more nicely, and, guess what, Rome really couldn't do anything and basically had to back down.

Do keep in mind that the Catholics I know well are mostly Franciscans, Jesuits, and Workers.

When I say a tiny Protestant denomination, I don't mean the mainstream Lutherans or the Anglicans or the major Reformed churches, who are just as diverse and tolerant as the Catholics, if not more so. I'm thinking more of little 'non-denominational' churches, some of the more extreme Baptist branches, or Freikirchen, the ones who think their 1000 members are saved and all the rest of 7 billion are destined for hell.

[kenberg]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-01, 18:37, said:

I think your pet peeve is a little misguided. There is no doubt that Roman catholics all over the world have their own believes that are not always aligned with what the Pope believes.

However, the RCC is an organization that is very hierarchical and theology is delivered top-down. Simply put: Everybody is supposed to believe what the Pope believes, but unfortunately, the flesh is weak and Catholics are human too, so some deviations are tolerated.

This is very different in the organization of most protestant churches. Protestants are very much responsible for their own believes, which is why there are so many different protestant churches: When the differences of opinion are getting too large, the church simply splits up, with each individual member making a personal decision. The organization is bottom-up: Local church members decide on theology and they will find a minister that is willing to preach it. The national organization of a protestant church is more of a federation that takes advantage of similar interests of individual churches and facilitates. It certainly doesnot force a theology on them.

Rik

Yes and no. You are right about the many variations of Protestant churches. However. Within any given church, the idea that church members "decide on theology" is not how I remember it. My mother's parents, for example, were Seventh Day Adventists. My mother became a Presbyterian. Besides the day of worship, Presbyterians play cards (poker, in the case of my parents), Seventh Day Adventists do not. This was not in the least a matter that was up for discussion. A friend was a Lutheran. The Lutheran church and the Presbyterian church were two city blocks and a zillion philosophical miles apart. We were right, they were wrong.

Now it has been a while and things change. A while back I went to a wedding and the Presbyterian minister played the guitar and sang. Some sort of country music I think. or maybe Bob Dylan. Nah, I must have that part wrong. Everybody must get stoned? I don't think so.

Yes, the Catholic church was/is more structured. I never knew who the top Presbyterian was, or even if there was one. But I think I would remember if the minister ever was interested in my theological views. He wasn't.

[mike777]

Is this thread discussing the Muslim response or non\response to violent Jihad or debating the finer points of Christ?

[Trinidad]

 mike777, on 2014-November-01, 23:10, said:

Is this thread discussing the Muslim response or non\response to violent Jihad or debating the finer points of Christ?

Oh, plllleaaase.

How often have you apologized for the crusades? How often for slavery? How often did you speak out against Abu Graib or the illegal invasion of Iraq?

Moderate Muslims are not responsible for acts committed by extremists. Every individual is responsible for his own behavior, not for the behavior of others with whom they happen to share something. Moderate Muslims do not need to respond to violent Jihad, nor do women named Isis.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 akwoo, on 2014-November-01, 19:58, said:

Do keep in mind that the Catholics I know well are mostly Franciscans, Jesuits, and Workers.

I didn't come into contact with these somewhat more free-thinking groups during nine years of Catholic school. In the "mainstream" church they tell you what your beliefs are, and if you disagree you tell it in confession and you pray about it.

And don't forget that the Pope can speak "infallibly" on doctrinal questions.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2014-November-01, 23:10, said:

Is this thread discussing the Muslim response or non\response to violent Jihad or debating the finer points of Christ?

By the time we get to post 1012 (yours) I think it is fair to assume the thread has lost its way. Currently the discussion seems to be centering on forms of Christianity but no doubt it has wandered over much terrain, most of it previously well traveled on other threads and in other places. So?

I generally find it interesting to see how people approach some of these matters and, from time to time, i see something that had not occurred to me. And then I have another cup of coffee, or maybe think a bit about a math problem I am working on.

But on to your question.

Yes, it would be helpful if the followers of Islam spoke loudly of their opposition to terrorism. It would also be helpful for us to realize that the American, and more generally American/European, presence in Islamic areas of the world has a magnitude that we would not comfortably adjust to if the shoe were on the other foot. It would be helpful if we all acknowledged that we really don't, when push comes to shove, think of all people as just folks. Some of us try, we perhaps believe it philosophically, but success is partial.
It is a small world and this runs up against the fact that they do not want us there, they do not wish to become like us religiously or culturally, and they wish we would just go away. And we do not wish to be like them, religiously or culturally. Speaking just for me I would love to have us just go away, leave them to the life they prefer, go on with our lives, but I think the nature of the modern world makes this impractical. I guess it was Rodney King who plaintively asked why we can't just all get along. Well, we can't. Who knows just why we can't, but we can't. It's a problem.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2014-November-02, 06:29, said:

Yes, it would be helpful if the followers of Islam spoke loudly of their opposition to terrorism.

This happens ALL the time.
Every time there is a major attacks, there are innumerable statements from mosques, cultural centers, and the like condemning the events.

It just doesn't get covered in US media because it doesn't fit the narrative that generates ratings.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2014-November-02, 09:18, said:

This happens ALL the time.
Every time there is a major attacks, there are innumerable statements from mosques, cultural centers, and the like condemning the events.

It just doesn't get covered in US media because it doesn't fit the narrative that generates ratings.

Responsible people in positions of leadership do so, yes..Will it suffice? I worry.

Bear with me as I bring up sports. The football season is on. I moved some years back and now live closer to Baltimore than to DC. I cannot tell you who the quarterback is for either team. But fans get rabid. There is our team and there is their team. People think this way, it appears to be intrinsic to human nature. Now of course it would be very beneficial for the world if we could think more rationally about big items. It would be good if we did not look at events as "Hey, a good score for the [fill in the team name]". Yes, responsible leaders call for responsible behavior, else they are not responsible leaders. We can hope.

Who, other than a nut, wants to see yet again the world get swallowed up in war? No one, I think. I wish I had a more optimistic view that this was sufficient motivation so that we could avoid war. The history of the world is not encouraging..

What do I know? Nothing, really. Not about this. But then ny understanding is that historians are still trying to figure how the First World War actually happened. No one, or at least very few, wanted it to happen. No doubt we have learned, in these past hundred years, how to do better. Sure we have.it's a world at peace.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2014-November-02, 11:20, said:

Bear with me as I bring up sports. The football season is on. I moved some years back and now live closer to Baltimore than to DC. I cannot tell you who the quarterback is for either team. But fans get rabid. There is our team and there is their team.

IMO, there is nothing wrong in having US vs THEM every now and then. It happens in a game of bridge where NS play agaist EW. My wife and I met at Michigan State University. We will root for the Spartans for the rest of our lives. We will even root for whoever is playing against those guys in blue and corn from Ann Arbor. It is a lot more fun to watch a game when you have picked a side.

But athis whole rivalry stays within the area of sports. I would not have any problem working together with scientists from "that place in Ann Arbor, MI that we won't mention". And, obviously, violence is completely out of the question.

Just as the differences between MSU and U of M or Baltimore and DC are artificial, many of the differences in the world are artificial.

We are all trying to live a happy life, we all eat and sleep, and we all want what is best for our children. Whatever book we do or don't believe in is insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, and the difference is as artificial as the difference between Baltimore and DC. Most people realize this. But a few extremists don't which is one of the major causes of trouble in the world.

Rik

[kenberg]

We agree on the values here. I am a pessimist about how this will play out but not a fatalist. I hope we can pull it together.

At the personal level I expect to, and for the most part i think I do, get along just fine with people from a variety of backgrounds. I have no nationalist or religious axe to grind. I think of this as the norm. but still, things can go badly wrong.

There are times that I get very frustrated. I was 6 when WW II ended, after that we had to all learn how to crawl under desks in case the Russkies nuked us, then there was a long cold war, and Korea and Vietnam and more than a bit of other stuff, and now this. A fair part of my reaction is "Oh no, again?" . I have kids, I have grandkids, and even if I didn't I have no stomach for war. But, but, but.

I'm a product of mid and late twentieth century America. I expect most, by far the most, of us really have no stomach for another war. If I were designing the universe, I would have done some things differently.

[Winstonm]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-02, 13:16, said:

IMO, there is nothing wrong in having US vs THEM every now and then. It happens in a game of bridge where NS play agaist EW. My wife and I met at Michigan State University. We will root for the Spartans for the rest of our lives. We will even root for whoever is playing against those guys in blue and corn from Ann Arbor. It is a lot more fun to watch a game when you have picked a side.

But athis whole rivalry stays within the area of sports. I would not have any problem working together with scientists from "that place in Ann Arbor, MI that we won't mention". And, obviously, violence is completely out of the question.

Just as the differences between MSU and U of M or Baltimore and DC are artificial, many of the differences in the world are artificial.

We are all trying to live a happy life, we all eat and sleep, and we all want what is best for our children. Whatever book we do or don't believe in is insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, and the difference is as artificial as the difference between Baltimore and DC. Most people realize this. But a few extremists don't which is one of the major causes of trouble in the world.

Rik

Yes, but what if the Spartan Dean of Students were the only true prophet?