Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Tue May 22, 2018 8:11 pm

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25078 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline
Bantamweight

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:39 am
Posts: 27
To Mr.Joey:
I think you should ban some people from posting long dissertations about God and religion in this forum. I myself am a believer in God and a brief mention of the Almighty and prayers every now and then is alright but a whole essay about it, come on! This forum is about chess and the progress of So, not religion.

The US Chess Championship 2018 start tomorrow, 4/18.
Faviano Caruana is on fire and is finally living up to his true chess talent. Will he win his 3rd tournament (after the Candidates and Grenke) in a row?
How about So, will he be able to retain his US Chess champion title?
This will be an interesting tournament!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:09 am 
Offline
Featherweight

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:07 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Antipolo City
Thank you bro. I have enough and sorry to sir joey. If in case you have a blog bro let me know. God bless you!

TheEnigma wrote:
To question no. 2:

The answer to this has something to do with natural law.

After creating the universe from nothing, God did not abandon His creatures to chance and leave them without purpose or guidance. On the contrary, He ordered and directed them to an end according to the plan established by His Divine Wisdom.

In an ordered universe guided by understandable physical laws, man also must have a final end and moral laws tailored to his nature that guide and govern him. It would be absurd if such ordering laws existed but were not easily knowable by man.

A moment’s reflection suffices to conclude that such laws exist and that man, too, is subject to the supreme order God established in Creation.

Man’s sense of being tells him that he is a man and a human being. His reason concludes that he exists within the limits of human nature. He knows that he is not a rock or a plant or a mere animal. He also knows he is not an angel but a man. Human nature is the “blueprint” for man’s conduct as a human being.

Part of the law governing man refers to non-free acts: physiological acts like sensation, digestion, breathing, blinking or growth. They are contained in this human “blueprint” and occur “automatically,” as it were, independent of a direct command from the will.

However, not all acts are automatic. Man performs free acts in his capacity as a rational being endowed with intellect and will. As such, he has the power to do or not do these actions as he so chooses.

Nevertheless, these acts are also subject to rules of behaviour established by the Creator. This supreme ordering of human conduct, this moral “blueprint” inscribed by the Creator in man’s very nature, is called “natural law.”

As its name indicates, natural law flows from human nature. It is that law which man can know with the light of reason without the aid of Divine Revelation, since God inscribed it in the depths of all hearts as Saint Paul teaches:

“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them” (Rom. 2:14-15).

Since it is inscribed on the hearts of all men, it is the same for everyone, everywhere and throughout time. Thus, natural law is universal. It is also immutable; time does not affect it. Moreover, there is no dispensation from natural law. All men must observe it. Lastly, it is perceptible and knowable by all men who have reached the age of reason.

Though they may err at times in their application, the most primitive peoples believe in the existence of universal principles such as, “We must love the supreme good,” “Do good and avoid evil,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Live according to right reason.”

All other principles stem from these universal principles: the respect due to one’s parents; the prohibition of homicide, theft, adultery, incest, lying and calumny; in sum, all of the Ten Commandments except the third (Keep holy the Sabbath), which is a Divine positive law.

(with notes from the book “Defending a Higher Law” by TFP Committee on American Issues)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:15 am 
Offline
Featherweight

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:07 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Antipolo City
Thank you bro.
1. We will know that there is one God by means of philosophy.
Yes I agree but not enough for us to know this one True God except for divine revelation. The reason there are lots of doctrine right now about God. As I mentioned above, they believed in ONE GOD but Jesus is just a man, they believed n ONE GOD and Jesus is just a mighty God, they believed in ONE GOD and that JESUS is the Father itself and last is they believed in ONE GOD in 3 person. Unless God revealed it to us, one cannot know exactly the mystery of the Godhead.
Back to topic sorry again sir joey maybe we can do bible sharing on other thread. :)

rizalincarnate wrote:
smacks1879 wrote:
Love reading it Bro.
Just have 2 questions. :)
1. There have been plenty of people in history who believed in one God without the help of the Bible. I personally believed that one cannot understand the Godhead except by revelation. And I believed that we need the bible or we need evidence in Scripture for us to understand Godhead but on the contrary it may not so. A man may believed in ONE God but does not mean it was a revelation because many Christians believed in One God but do not share the same views. Like 3 person in one God, Almighty God and mighty God, Jesus is the God itself or One God and Jesus is a man. So is Philosophical truth enough for us to understand ONE God?

2. Thou shalt not kill is a philosophical truth that can be known by reason. Even these moral norms can be known without recourse to religion or the Bible. Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” Where does this moral norms came from if not in the bible?

Thank you so much bro. Excited to hear your response. :)

A world of magic and imagination?

It’s no wonder then that Gorio doesn’t believe in the saying: “ang utang ay dapat bayaran”... :lol:

Kidding aside, the answer to this is simple enough – it’s a wonderful world of faith and reason!

Whereas philosophy pertains to reason alone, theology pertains to divine revelation. When the Greek philosopher Plato discussed whether the human soul existed after death, he was engaged in philosophy -- a reasoned argument. However, when Moses spoke of the will of the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” he was engaged in revealing divine truths. This accords with theology.

Philosophy and theology, like reason and faith, are distinct but complementary. It is said that philosophy is the “handmaiden” of theology. This means that the power of reason and the truths known through reason are able to aid and assist men in theology.

For example, a pagan living on an island in the middle of nowhere can know the truth that God exists. This is something that unaided reason can lead a person to know. It is a philosophical truth that does not require religion. There have been plenty of people in history who believed in one God without the help of the Bible. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero are examples of pagan thinkers who postulated a highest God who reigned over all. Other philosophical truths include the fact that God is different from creation, that humans are different from other animals, that humans have a soul, and that there are moral laws. Thou shalt not kill is a philosophical truth that can be known by reason. Even these moral norms can be known without recourse to religion or the Bible.

Examples of Philosophical Truths Known by Reason
• God exists
• God is one
• Humans have immortal souls
Do not steal

Examples of Theological Truths Known by Divine Revelation
• Jesus is the Son of God
• Heaven and Hell
• Jesus shall judge the living and the dead

So, once again, what can a pagan know? A pagan can know there is a God and know that he has an immortal soul long before he becomes a Christian. The theological truths, like those in the second set of examples presented above, answer the “so what” questions occasioned in the first set of examples. For instance, “If there is a God and I have a soul, then what do I do about it?” The philosophical question leads to a theological question.

Finally, in the exact words of drk_schultz (in PRMO section of Lounge Area in this forum), and I quote, “MAGIC is the FOUNDATION of RELIGION na inbolb ang god”. That, to me, is an absurd statement. I don’t see any magic involved here. On the contrary, I only see reason leading to faith. I only see philosophical truths finding fulfillment in the theological truths.

(with notes from Dr. T. R. Marshall’s “A Layman’s Quick Guide to Thomism”)

Back to topic...

We would like to say that Wesley had, at least, a good learning experience in his first try in the Candidates Tournament. Many great players in the past (Paul Keres, Efim Geller, etc) never became challengers to the world title because they had never won first place in the Candidates Tournament. Even the legendary Bobby Fischer had to pass through three attempts in the Candidates before he finally made it to the world championship.

We, therefore, continue our support for Wesley – wishing him the best and hoping and praying for his many triumphs that are still to come.

As a footnote then, did God fail us in our earlier hope and prayers? No. God is faithful to His promises. Our part is to ask, and we must be persevering and humble in our prayer.

So many times we hear people saying: “Oh, I used to ask God for this and that and the other, but He never gave it to me. Now, ten years later, how glad I am that He didn’t!”

One thing is certain: God will not fail to answer a humble and persevering prayer. Whether He chooses to grant what we ask immediately or make us wait, we must trust that He, regardless of appearances, is doing us good. (Our thoughts are not His thoughts, nor our ways His ways.)

Another consideration pertaining to non-believers is this: If God were to grant us absolutely everything we ask at a moment’s notice, such people might start believing purely out of self-interest. They would look at God as a wand-wielding wizard (a magician!). And God Our Lord is infinitely more than that. He wants us to know, love, and serve Him for Himself so that He can treat us as children and heirs and grant us unending happiness in Heaven.

So, in the end, we may throw back the question: where is magic here? :)



Let me answer your first (and only) question in 1, because 2 is not a question.

1. We will know that there is one God by means of philosophy. God is spirit, the One SPIRIT that is the source of LIFE, the same spirit or breath of life that was blown into our nostrils to make us living souls. This means that all spirits that give life came from God and are part of God. The living spirits within us all came from God and must return to Him when we die. We are one with God in spirit, because our spirits that keep us alive came from Him. The same with the Word that dwelt in the physical body of Jesus, it is also the Spirit of God. In fact, the Word is not only the spirit that kept Jesus alive, that same Word was also with God in the beginning and was in fact God. For how can IT not be God when that spirit was part of the same ONE God? Every living soul has the spirit of God (life) within it. When that soul dies because of sin, the spirit returns to God and the dead soul or body sleeps in the grave. No one can give life except God, the source of life. The only difference between the Word or spirit of Jesus and the spirit within us is that the spirit within us is one that keeps us alive, whereas the spirit (Word) within Jesus is part of God which created us in the beginning. The Bible says that Jesus manifests the 'FULLNESS' of God because the Word is God. The physical Jesus is man, not God. The spirit of Jesus (Word) is God, and God being spirit, is ONE. That is, God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, are ONE and the same spirit of the ONE GOD.

2. The LAW points to the sins that we have committed, that is, it condemns us to die because of that sin. The 10 Commandments judged us as sinners who deserve to die. There is no escape from this punishment because God does not change. How then can we be saved? Through the Grace of the SON, the Heir of the Father who bequeathed everything to His only begotten Son. If the Son had not been born, we would not have received salvation because we would all die without redemption. The blood of Jesus has redeemed us from certain death.
By analogy, an earthly King may pass a law that anybody who violates his command will be sentenced to die. But if the King abdicates the throne and transfer all authority to His Son, the Son may pass a new law that would not change the command of His Father, but would absolve offenders on condition that they obey the Son. The Law of the Father did not change but the Law of the Son has redeemed us from that Law.

This promise of salvation by the Son is the foundation of Christianity, of which Wesley is a member. The more Wesley believes in Jesus, the more his faith will deepen and take him to greater heights in the pursuit of his dreams.[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:22 am
Posts: 125994
Location: Bacoor, Cavite or M.M. PACMAN Believer #160 (PB-0160)
R1: GM Zherebukh, Yaroslav(2640)-GM So, Wesley(2786)

https://www.uschesschamps.com/2018-us-championships/2018-us-chess-championship/pairings-results-championship

_________________
Micah 6:8 (NIRV)

The Lord has shown you what is good.
He has told you what he requires of you.
You must act with justice.
You must love to show mercy.
And you must be humble as you live in the sight of your God.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:52 pm
Posts: 44064
Location: Philippines
joeyj wrote:


Go Wesley So. More power...
Hope you can get a win on the very first round for good start at early momentum in the tourney. 8) :angel: :angel: :angel:

_________________
- It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
- Finding good players is easy. Getting them to play as a team is another story.
- Defense wins games. Excellent defense wins championships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:16 pm 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 479
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
To Mr.Joey:
I think you should ban some people from posting long dissertations about God and religion in this forum. I myself am a believer in God and a brief mention of the Almighty and prayers every now and then is alright but a whole essay about it, come on! This forum is about chess and the progress of So, not religion.

The US Chess Championship 2018 start tomorrow, 4/18.
Faviano Caruana is on fire and is finally living up to his true chess talent. Will he win his 3rd tournament (after the Candidates and Grenke) in a row?
How about So, will he be able to retain his US Chess champion title?
This will be an interesting tournament!

Thanks for acknowledging that this forum is about chess and the progress of So -- not of your ‘boy’ Carlsen.

We hope that you (as a believer yourself) will be posting more encouraging words for Wesley from now on... :D

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:11 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:22 am
Posts: 125994
Location: Bacoor, Cavite or M.M. PACMAN Believer #160 (PB-0160)
R1: GM Zherebukh, Yaroslav(2640)-GM So, Wesley(2786): 0-1

Nice Win Wes ! :D :celebrate:

_________________
Micah 6:8 (NIRV)

The Lord has shown you what is good.
He has told you what he requires of you.
You must act with justice.
You must love to show mercy.
And you must be humble as you live in the sight of your God.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:52 pm
Posts: 44064
Location: Philippines
joeyj wrote:
R1: GM Zherebukh, Yaroslav(2640)-GM So, Wesley(2786): 0-1

Nice Win Wes ! :D :celebrate:


YES!!! Congratz Wesley So. Hopefully, tuloy-tuloy ang mga panalo... 8) :celebrate:

Again more power to you Wesley So... :angel: :angel: :angel:

_________________
- It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
- Finding good players is easy. Getting them to play as a team is another story.
- Defense wins games. Excellent defense wins championships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:35 am 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1108
Location: In exile
TheEnigma wrote:
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
To Mr.Joey:
I think you should ban some people from posting long dissertations about God and religion in this forum. I myself am a believer in God and a brief mention of the Almighty and prayers every now and then is alright but a whole essay about it, come on! This forum is about chess and the progress of So, not religion.

The US Chess Championship 2018 start tomorrow, 4/18.
Faviano Caruana is on fire and is finally living up to his true chess talent. Will he win his 3rd tournament (after the Candidates and Grenke) in a row?
How about So, will he be able to retain his US Chess champion title?
This will be an interesting tournament!

Thanks for acknowledging that this forum is about chess and the progress of So -- not of your ‘boy’ Carlsen.

We hope that you (as a believer yourself) will be posting more encouraging words for Wesley from now on... :D



If I may add, since this forum is about Wesley, debating or giving opinion on his faith is part of the discussion. Since we read some comments ridiculing Wesley's faith in God whenever he loses his game, it is but proper that Wesley's fans defend him from his detractors, which necessarily touches on religion and God. I find nothing wrong with this. But I agree that long posts should be avoided, but even then, we are still free to read or not to read those long posts.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:22 am
Posts: 125994
Location: Bacoor, Cavite or M.M. PACMAN Believer #160 (PB-0160)
R2 : 19-Apr : GM So, Wesley(2786)-GM Onischuk, Alexander(2672) : 1-0 : +3.4 : 2792.4

https://chessaccount.com/live-ratings-phi/wesley-so-live-ratings/

_________________
Micah 6:8 (NIRV)

The Lord has shown you what is good.
He has told you what he requires of you.
You must act with justice.
You must love to show mercy.
And you must be humble as you live in the sight of your God.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:41 pm
Posts: 1089
Location: ph
keep going wes. :D :lol: :-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:53 pm 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 479
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
Two fine wins from the first two rounds -- I think that’s a bit impressive. :)

In the first round, Wesley beat Zherebukh by outcalculating him tactically in the middle-game phase. If we review it, we can observe how tactics abound, particularly in the unplayed variations as shown by chess engine evaluations. Before Zherebukh committed a couple of small inaccuracies, however, we can see also some nice positional maneuvering by Wesley which was reminiscent of former world champion Tigran Petrosian’s style of play. (To the uninitiated, Petrosian’s games usually feature protracted stages of maneuvering in which he gradually exploits an “imperceptible” structural defect in his opponent’s position.)

In our game, it was noteworthy there weren’t any exchanges made before move 22. Wesley’s seemingly harmless back-rank (and Petrosian-like) maneuvers (17...Ba8 and 18...Nb8) paved the way for his knight to occupy the hole on White’s d4, and for his queen to be able to slide to a7 thereby creating potential open files for his rooks on d8 and c8. The ensuing tactics netted Wesley a pawn and gave him the much better position going into the endgame phase. Finally, after all the rooks have been exchanged, the resulting minor-piece ending netted Wesley yet another pawn, enough for his opponent to concede defeat.

In addition, it’s interesting to note that Wesley employed some opening concepts that were undoubtedly Fischer’s opening approach in facing against the closed or semi-closed lines of the Sicilian (i.e., White refrains from playing his pawn to d4 in the opening stages). In his games, we usually find Fischer fianchettoing both his bishops when going against White in this type of Sicilian set-up. Incidentally, both of Wesley’s fianchettoed bishops in our game were the reasons that would explain the tactics contained in the unplayed variations of the game.

As to the second-round game, Wesley clearly outplayed Onischuk in the Ruy Lopez opening. Wesley had shown better positional judgment, and he was able to convert his advantage into a kingside attack that reduced Black to practically having no effective counterplay. Wesley eventually won a pawn, and this was enough to simplify the play into an endgame with decisive advantage, as he had obtained a passed e-pawn in the process. The final position speaks for itself of the reason of Onischuk’s resignation. Black would have to exchange rooks to prevent White’s e-pawn from queening. In so doing, White’s king will be able to advance further into Black’s territory and will win Black’s pawns through proper timing (tempo), that is, by employing the chess endgame concept of ‘opposition’.

Thus, to the uninitiated, the lesson to be learned here is that one must first have a proper understanding and appreciation of King-and-pawn endings before he will be able to handle well most especially rook endings.

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:13 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:41 am
Posts: 2320
Location: Pinas kong mahal
Very helpful analysis to someone like me studying chess, thanks bro! :)

_________________
noypinga[i][/i]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:15 am 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:35 pm
Posts: 301
Nice Win :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:25 am 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:35 pm
Posts: 301
TheEnigma wrote:
Two fine wins from the first two rounds -- I think that’s a bit impressive. :)

In the first round, Wesley beat Zherebukh by outcalculating him tactically in the middle-game phase. If we review it, we can observe how tactics abound, particularly in the unplayed variations as shown by chess engine evaluations. Before Zherebukh committed a couple of small inaccuracies, however, we can see also some nice positional maneuvering by Wesley which was reminiscent of former world champion Tigran Petrosian’s style of play. (To the uninitiated, Petrosian’s games usually feature protracted stages of maneuvering in which he gradually exploits an “imperceptible” structural defect in his opponent’s position.)

In our game, it was noteworthy there weren’t any exchanges made before move 22. Wesley’s seemingly harmless back-rank (and Petrosian-like) maneuvers (17...Ba8 and 18...Nb8) paved the way for his knight to occupy the hole on White’s d4, and for his queen to be able to slide to a7 thereby creating potential open files for his rooks on d8 and c8. The ensuing tactics netted Wesley a pawn and gave him the much better position going into the endgame phase. Finally, after all the rooks have been exchanged, the resulting minor-piece ending netted Wesley yet another pawn, enough for his opponent to concede defeat.

In addition, it’s interesting to note that Wesley employed some opening concepts that were undoubtedly Fischer’s opening approach in facing against the closed or semi-closed lines of the Sicilian (i.e., White refrains from playing his pawn to d4 in the opening stages). In his games, we usually find Fischer fianchettoing both his bishops when going against White in this type of Sicilian set-up. Incidentally, both of Wesley’s fianchettoed bishops in our game were the reasons that would explain the tactics contained in the unplayed variations of the game.

As to the second-round game, Wesley clearly outplayed Onischuk in the Ruy Lopez opening. Wesley had shown better positional judgment, and he was able to convert his advantage into a kingside attack that reduced Black to practically having no effective counterplay. Wesley eventually won a pawn, and this was enough to simplify the play into an endgame with decisive advantage, as he had obtained a passed e-pawn in the process. The final position speaks for itself of the reason of Onischuk’s resignation. Black would have to exchange rooks to prevent White’s e-pawn from queening. In so doing, White’s king will be able to advance further into Black’s territory and will win Black’s pawns through proper timing (tempo), that is, by employing the chess endgame concept of ‘opposition’.

Thus, to the uninitiated, the lesson to be learned here is that one must first have a proper understanding and appreciation of King-and-pawn endings before he will be able to handle well most especially rook endings.


I have been reading most of your analysis and think that you have deeper understanding of the game of chess. I would like to know if you are a chess player of a GM caliber of a pure chess enthusiast? Just curious, no need to reply if this will cause inconvenience to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25078 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group