What in the name of god is bible study?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Checkers hasn't been solved for all possible positions. It's only been solved for the strongest starting position.

Checkers has 10^31 moves on a 8x8 board, but chess has 10^138 moves. If we can't strongly solve Checkers, then we aren't ever going to strongly solve Chess.

Your ****ing logic is killing me here.

Checkers was solved from the standard starting position. It wasn't solved for all positions because it takes a lot of computational horsepower to do it. It takes 10^14 calculations to solve. It can be recomputed for any starting position without a single bit of code being changed in the software, it'll just take another ~10^14 calculations. Given the growth of computational power, that's going to happen increasingly quickly. No one's attempted yet because it's kind of pointless. But it's 100% certain to be possible, so your assertion that we can't solve checkers is absolutely false.

Both Checkers and Chess are absolutely solvable. It's a question of computational horsepower to get it done, but it's solvable. Checkers is considered solved, Chess is well on its way. Subsets are already solved, and as computational power increases, so too does the size of the set that is solved.

As usual, I don't think you understand the basics of anything you talk about.

[Ben Kenobi]

oth Checkers and Chess are absolutely solvable. It's a question of computational horsepower to get it done, but it's solvable. Checkers is considered solved, Chess is well on its way. Subsets are already solved, and as computational power increases, so too does the size of the set that is solved.

As usual, I don't think you understand the basics of anything you talk about.

If it doubles every two years, then it would take, 826 years, assuming that they could compute 10^14 positions in a single year, which they can't do yet.

You planning to live that long Asher?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If it doubles every two years, then it would take, 826 years, assuming that they could compute 10^14 positions in a single year, which they can't do yet.

You planning to live that long Asher?

8f98cbq78rb74r7cq4ry7qry7qrc7 46c76rc6wr7cr4

dfgjejkrghcwejrthv

!!!!!!
jsdhfgjk werhtv89yw3t8 vy3c

q34tcu254vy 89ty893tv3
v 8t72389v7 98ty
****ing liar
er g90w8er7tgnw35 t89
qvc48 u894c dfvrwjfkharjfkhkjashfsdjkh

-----

rfg uw38tc h
8534t9754ygt7ygc35

DKFGHJ WGJ
egr/klesg ERG EGWENGKEHLGHN EKRGH
e RGHWEG: KEHWG GH ERGHREWG JERWG WER

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
So it's a sort of backhanded compliment, almost. Well, I'll take it that way.

It's a compliment to the individuals, a condemnation of the system.

Or just that they were aware that what they were doing would be met with disapproval by uninitiated reactionaries (or whatever word Nazis used for "heathen"). If it comes to that, early Xians held their meetings in secret; there's a part in the Liturgy where the priest says aloud, "The doors, the doors!" Now a meaningless exclamation, in the days of persecution it was a sign for the door-wardens to close the doors before the creed so the civil authorities couldn't poke their noses in and catch everyone in a mass confession of "guilt." It's not necessarily a matter of moral certitude--it could just as easily be old-fashioned cover-your-ass.

But the Nazis even took steps to hide what they were doing from people who had no power to stop them or condemn them. That's why concentration camps weren't in the heart of Germany, but rather in relatively remote areas of occupied lands. They had no reason to hide what they were doing from ordinary Germans, if they believed it was morally justified.

So it's not really a matter of ethical superiority so much as inferiority of appeal? So what?

I think it makes a huge difference in terms of pernicious potential if an ethos can convince good people to commit unspeakable evils, rather than ethos that naturally attracts thugs and murderers. It's the whole "convincing people the devil doesn't exist." thing. Religion has convinced people what they're doing is ordained by god. Political ideologies can't get close to that (unless they're inherently religious ones).

[Asher]

@BEN, NOT MY LOVER MARKYMARK

You have no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

You're apparently thinking of moore's law. Which is actually a law about transistors in a CPU, and the time period is 18 months.

What you do not account for is:
- Scientific computing power is growing FAR faster than Moore's law for many reasons
- Algorithms and techniques improve dramatically every year which improve speed

Your claim that we cannot solve checkers and we cannot solve chess is demonstrably false. You are simply being stupid.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
8f98cbq78rb74r7cq4ry7qry7qrc7 46c76rc6wr7cr4

dfgjejkrghcwejrthv

!!!!!!
jsdhfgjk werhtv89yw3t8 vy3c

q34tcu254vy 89ty893tv3
v 8t72389v7 98ty
****ing liar
er g90w8er7tgnw35 t89
qvc48 u894c dfvrwjfkharjfkhkjashfsdjkh

-----

rfg uw38tc h
8534t9754ygt7ygc35

DKFGHJ WGJ
egr/klesg ERG EGWENGKEHLGHN EKRGH
e RGHWEG: KEHWG GH ERGHREWG JERWG WER

Damn it, you broke him.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm saying you could, if you were willing to wait 800 years.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I think I've given the proper consideration to improvements in computer technology, rather then just waving a magic wand and saying -"it will happen".

And you say I have faith!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm saying you could, if you were willing to wait 800 years.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I think I've given the proper consideration to improvements in computer technology, rather then just waving a magic wand and saying -"it will happen".

It's not a magic wand, it's ****ing game theory you nitwit.

It's complex math that you won't understand, given your problems with basic arithmetic here.

Just back the **** off. You picked a terrible example in a field you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. You were corrected. It actually discredits your original point, given that you compared the two as unsolvable when the one you compared it to is demonstrably solvable.

[Kuciwalker]

BEN KENOBI YOU ARE SO WRONG YOU SHOULD BE SITTING IN A CORNER AND CRYING SO HARD YOU DROWN IN YOUR OWN TEARS

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


In 600 AD the area was primarily Christian, and the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were extremely prominent.

Yes. Not much of a surprise as Islam didn't exist yet and the Byzantine empire was Christian.

Then 60 years later the Muslims overrun the whole area and slaughter the Christians. They destroyed the Christian kingdoms in Africa, and in most of Spain, and threatened the Byzantine Europe.

You're conflating different periods of time. May I remind you that Islam originated from the Arabic peninsula, most of which had a polytheistic population mixed with a Jewish population (from the diaspora). Mohammed saw monotheism as a tool for power and wished to create

1) a monotheistic religion that was based on the same Judaeo-Christian tradition (creating a monotheistic religion from scratch would be impossible), but had distinct Arabic traits so it would sway Arabs to follow suit and become followers of himself

2) a means to unite monotheism. In his era (7th century) there were a lot of conflicts between Christians and Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine in general. Mohammed and his immediate folowers sought to remove the rivalry by presenting a religion that went back to basics. This is why Muslims often present us with that oddity - that everyone in the world is a Muslim, as you might have heard from some wacko Muslims. Abraham for example was a Muslim in their view. Some people changed the ways and became Jew or Christian but essentially everyone is still Muslim. That was the genious idea of Mohammed really.

In consequence many people converted as Mohammed and his cronies gained military control over the area. Many people converted, and usually they did so quite willingly. It's only later (I forgot which caliphate exactly) that persecution started on a grander scale, and this was - as always - caused by socio-economical distress.

It took 200 years to level, and throughout that period there was constant warfare between the Muslims and between the Christians.

Eh? 200 years to level? It took us until the renaissance to level. Islamic realms were vastly superior in trade, science, wealth and just about everything else too.

The Crusades weren't isolated events. The pope excluded the Spanish from the crusades because they had the Reconquista. The Crusades were merely the extension of the overall conflict between Christians and Muslims.

I'm not saying they were isolated. Just sayin they were motivated by more than just the killings of a handful Christians in Jerusalem at the time.

Heretics? Why did the Pope hand over Antioch to the Byzantines?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're conflating different periods of time.

How so? I'm speaking of the period in the late 500's early 600's prior to Muhammed, when the Christian East was well established.

Have you forgotten that the Persians actually conquered the Levant prior to their successful recapture only 20 years or so prior to Muhammed? The Byzantines fought back and eventually crushed the Persians which is why Muhammed managed to wipe them out both in the East, and then turned West on the Near Eastern parts of Byzantium.

people changed the ways and became Jew or Christian but essentially everyone is still Muslim. That was the genious idea of Mohammed really.

So Islam spread peacefully? What bull. Look at the Copts in Egypt, who have managed to survive everything. The reason why Islam was so powerful is due to the choices they presented, death by the sword or to pay the Jizya. Those who didn't want or were unable to support themselves, paid the money to the Muslims, which fueled greater expansion.

I would say that the big reason why they stalled is becuase the plunder eventually died out when the targets became hard enough. That took a long time though, not until Vienna.

In consequence many people converted as Mohammed and his cronies gained military control over the area.

The persecution began right from the start. You had three choices. Submission to Islam and conversion, death, or the Jizya. That was it.

Eh? 200 years to level? It took us until the renaissance to level. Islamic realms were vastly superior in trade, science, wealth and just about everything else too.

After 800, their expansion slowed dramatically. They were unable to spread Islam much further, after the defeats by the Franks. They were unable to conquer Italy. They were unable to run over the Byzantines, and the Byzantines began to experience a revival. They were driven back from Rome, and defeated at Constantinople.

It wasn't until Mazinkert do we see significant Muslim expansion again into Christian lands, and that expansion wasn't halted until Vienna.

The crusades, you must remember happened shortly AFTER Mazikert, when the stalemate was broken, and the weakness of the Byzantines revealed.

That is why I say it levelled, in the sense that they had expanded tremendously and were unable to expand much further.

I'm not saying they were isolated. Just sayin they were motivated by more than just the killings of a handful Christians in Jerusalem at the time.

That was the spark. The Umyyad Caliph attempted to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009, the First Crusade was launched 3 years later. It was the next chapter of the already 400 year long wars between the two that dominated the End of Antiquity and the Early Medieval period.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

In 1085, the third city of Christianity, Antioch, fell to the Seljuk Turks, when the gate was left open, and the Turks permitted to enter.

Antioch had fallen earlier to the Muslims, in 637 in the Battle of the Iron Bridge, it wasn't recaptured until 969 by Nicephorius.

After the Turks expelled and imprisoned the Orthodox, the Crusaders marched on Antioch in 1097, Godfrey of Bouillion, Bohemund of Taranto and Raymond of Toulouse besieged Antioch.

They were joined by Tacitius, a Byzantine General who assisted in the seige. 3 months later, Tacitius fled, after being falsely told by the Turks that the Latins planned to execute him and his men.

Edgar Atheling, the former Crown prince of England arrived several months later to provide reinforcements from Constantinople.

It wasn't until June, after a 9 month seige that the Crusaders with their reinforcements managed to capture Antioch from the Turks, and they returned the city to the Byzantines, as was promised.

This is why it's an important point in describing the relationship betwen the Latins and the Orthodox prior to the schism, and prior to the sacking of Constatinople a hundred years later.

This was a very important moment in medieval history. I'm rather shocked people don't know about it!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Re: What in the name of god is bible study?

Originally posted by onodera

Weekly Bible study? What's that? How do you do that? I've thought it had been studied and pulled apart to death already.

Sure, but I think you can consider it like studying the complete works of Shakespeare. It's a big amount of literature, and to learn it all would take a lot of time. Sure, there are scholars who will know more about every book, it's origins, symbolism, meaning etc than you ever will, but just because some people know something doesn't stop you from finding that stuff out as well.

Plus of course there's a lot of people that live their lives based on the Bible as a moral compass, so I can imagine tuning that compass would take an even longer time and a lot of rereading the same stuff again and again.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But the Nazis even took steps to hide what they were doing from people who had no power to stop them or condemn them. That's why concentration camps weren't in the heart of Germany, but rather in relatively remote areas of occupied lands. They had no reason to hide what they were doing from ordinary Germans, if they believed it was morally justified.

I've only read Hannah Arendt's Totalitarianism, but IIRC she said that the average German knew pretty well what was happening in the camps, even if they weren't told point-blank. But I really don't know enough about history to argue this effectively, so I guess you have the field.

I think it makes a huge difference in terms of pernicious potential if an ethos can convince good people to commit unspeakable evils, rather than ethos that naturally attracts thugs and murderers. It's the whole "convincing people the devil doesn't exist." thing. Religion has convinced people what they're doing is ordained by god. Political ideologies can't get close to that (unless they're inherently religious ones).

? As Felch noted with that experiment, people will often gladly go along with the scheme provided someone else (the thugs in question) accepts the actual responsibility. It's a question of good people committing unspeakable evils vs. good people sitting by while bad people commit unspeakable evils. It comes out to the same thing.

However, you can't have it both ways. A religion that's more powerful for evil is also going to be more powerful when used for good. Again, I'm not a student of history, but I know the civil rights movement began in and centered around the churches in the South. If it can make a good man do bad, it can also make an indifferent man fight for good. At worst I'd say the balance is even.

And speaking for my own religion, we certainly don't want anyone thinking the devil doesn't exist.

Ben, leaving aside the technically inaccurate "heretic" label, do you honestly claim that Rome was looking out for Orthodox interests during the Crusades? Even the Fourth Crusade, which sacked Constantinople and put a Frank on the Imperial throne for decades?

EDIT to remove formatting error

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


They left Lambeth and held their own conference. They no longer take communion with episcopalians. That's a sign they no longer consider you folks to be a part of their church.

Why would they leave the Anglican communion? They are the Anglican communion. How can you brand the majority of Anglicans as renegades?

The Anglican Communion is like a "confederation". It's member churches are autonomous. Technically only 6 of 44 members participated in GAFCON.

That makes no sense. The African church hasn't changed their theology one whit. The Episcopalians have drastically changed.

The Episcoplaian church hasn't changed it's theology either. We made Robinson a bishop, not a god.

That makes the Episcopalians renegades.

If you read Akinola's work you realise that he also blames the British. It's interesting that he still proclaims himself "Anglican".

Still no evidence for your outrageous charge that they are bought and paid for by the Americans.

It comes from an article in a publication which isn't available online. Their won't be an article in a major publication because it's not illegal to pay off church leaders in another country.

It seems to me they are all part of the same group of people who are unhappy with the new direction the Anglicans have gone in light of accommodating the episcopalian innovations. The African church has remained faithful to Christ and whether they stay within the Anglican communion depends on which way your head totters.

Christ wasn't a bigot. You know that.

I honestly think the only way to save Anglicanism would be to kick out the Episcopalians and let you have your own church. You already think that way, so the only thing that would change is that you wouldn't have to answer to other Anglicans anymore and could do whatever you want.

Who cares what you think? You're Catholic, you've made your prejudices well known. The Archibishop of Canterbury disagrees with you. So do 3 out of 4 of the member churches of the Anglican Communion.

How is defending the teachings of Christ bigotry?

Akinola and his cronies aren't defending the teachings of Christ, they're defending their own personal prejudices.

Then the Anglicans are in schism, thanks to that one statement. You call everyone who disagrees with you bigots, and then are surprised when they refuse to take communion with you. I'm not surprised. That's what happens when people condemn one another rather then trying to love one another.

I'm really, really sure they're the ones who condemned us. Much to their chagrin the member churches from the rest of the world didn't follow their lead.

Yes, but you're talking about Canada. I know for a fact that PECUSA maintains no parishes in Vancouver. It's against the oldest canons of the Anglican Communion.

The fact is the division is not just the Africans, and the rationale behind the divisions has nothing to do with bigotry but everything to do with Christ. You've brought together parishes with nothing in common with each other simply then the word of God that they share.
[/quote] The only member church of the Anglican Communion outside of Africa to attend the GAFCON was the "Church of the Cone", a very small church consisting largely of English immigrants in southern South America.

I've seen what's happened in Vancouver, and while the PECUSA doesn't have any parishes there, that already shows me there are two churches, which was my point. You've already split, you think differently, and you no longer think of them as your brothers and sisters. What more needs to be said to say you are in schism?

Well lots of folks around here still say that states have the right to secede, that the formation of the Confederacy was a legal action and that the United States had no right to destroy the CSA. My view on that is that the reason for the CSA's secession, to preserve the institution of slavery was wrong and therefore their secession was wrong. The GAFCON members now make utterly no mention of the real reason for their move, instead in their statements they make more abstract claims of that the (real) Anglican Communion has abandoned the bible. Why are they afraid to come put and declare their real reason for setting up GAFCON? I think they're afraid to come out and say "We're forming up our own group because we hate gays." Why should they be afraid to put it on paper? I think it's because they know how it will look, they're afraid of what the world will think.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There is unbroken succession from that point onwards, although interrupted during the Interregnum.

The Conquerer wasn't in the line prior and neither were the Danes.

errr no. stephen, the kings during the war of the roses, james i, william of orange and the hanoverians, to name a few, were not in line.