Jump to content
The World News Media


The Librarian

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Awake 73 March 22 p.12 "the spirit of competition between players can lead to unpleasant circumstances...in some homes tensions linger long past checkmate...Chess has been a game of war since it originated...the games connection to war is obvious....a play substitute for the art of war...there is a danger of stirring uo competition with one another even developing hostility with one another something the bible warns against....What effect does playing Chess have on one? Is it a wholesome effect? ....there are questions regarding it that each one who plays chess should consider."

tumblr_motnjpAK1x1s865f6o1_500.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.7k
  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin   The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be

In what world? I have yet to see a chess game where the contestants (players) were anything but completely civil with each other, true gentlemen, and friendly ... and I have played perhaps 400 ga

Jesus was only 3 1/2 years on Earth in a role of Teacher and Master. He had not enough time for "stupid" subjects ..... .... for example; ( would his  true disciple reject false, pagan custo

Posted Images

  • Member

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin

 


The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.

1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?

2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.

3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .

And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .

If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.

You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.

You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'

If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.

Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
45 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

there are questions regarding it that each one who plays chess should consider.

I remember this article well. I really welcomed it at the time. As a teenager, a close friend of mine was an avid and highly proficient chess player. He actually taught me the game, and continued to trounce me daily for a period of years. I actually did checkmate him once when his concentration was impaired, but that was never repeated. He put his success down to his superior intellect, and constantly reminded me of this, attributing my "deficiency" to genetic inheritence.

We both became witnesses, and he continued his passion. Indeed, other witnesses (including some at Bethel) who shared this passion would travel miles to play him and of course their sole purpose in that was to attempt to beat him at the game. I don't recall any succeeding in this. Then, this article came out in the Awake. I was triumphant! My suspicions of the games "evil" origins were confirmed. My feelings of inferiority faded and my damaged self image was healed. My friend was unimpressed. "It's a matter of conscience" he said. "Doesn't change the fact you're just a born loser at this". By that time I had acquired some musical skills that my friend was desiring to emulate. He, unfortunately suffering from a condition where he couldn't hear note difference, was unable play in tune although he was able to technically read music much better than me. Somehow, the balance was adjusted by this as we came to agree that chess proficiency was not the only measure of intellect or worth as a person. We are still friends, and he still plays chess.

The article in the Awake summed up (more completely than the quote above), "Surely chess is a fascinating game. But there are questions regarding it that are good for each one who plays chess to consider." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I remember that article also. Was on the chess team in school. Many thought I should have stopped, but I did not. It was adversarial and I loved, still do after some 50 years. Competition in games are good, in balance and we must be able to draw the line; know when and where not to go to far with it, and it's hard being imperfect. I didn't huge up football, either, knowing it's origins. I thought I read once that it was the ending of a matter than the beginning, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, Gone Away said:

The article in the Awake summed up (more completely than the quote above), "Surely chess is a fascinating game. But there are questions regarding it that are good for each one who plays chess to consider."

When I was in my 20's, I considered the Watchtower's "Questions", phrased in such a way as to make being COMPLETELY idiotic and clueless, and the opinions of writers living in an artificial fantasy bubble of their own construction,, plausibly deniable as the rantings of agenda driven shut-ins.

They were also against riding a motorcycle, skydiving, surfing, SCUBA diving and anything that stretched a person's mind and imagination.

To me... about such things they had absolutely NO credibility whatsoever.

Now, I am an old man, and look back with great fondness at my youth for having done such things .. and my "bucket list"is a lot shallower, and has many less items in it.

King David was most of his early life a bloodied combat soldier ... and was in the end described as "Old and satisfied with his days".

I can just see his response if some "Pharisee" told him it was a bad idea to play a game of chess.

Jesus stated that the poor would ALWAYS be with us.

He never addressed that the determined STUPID would always be with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 10/27/2018 at 1:57 AM, The Librarian said:

...there is a danger of stirring up competition with one another even developing hostility with one another something the bible warns against.

In what world?

I have yet to see a chess game where the contestants (players) were anything but completely civil with each other, true gentlemen, and friendly ... and I have played perhaps 400 games myself with people all over the world, with great congeniality and friendliness.

Now, if you are playing "Battle Chess", where one of the contestants has severe acne, and an eye patch covering up a sword slash scar,  and the other has a tattoo that says "Born to Kill", and before the game begins both players put their guns and knives  on the table, and the timer is a nearsighted accountant chained to a chair, and they are wagering over several bars of gold,  and the virginity of a woman tied to railroad tracks,  and there is a gallows in the parking lot ... I might want to avoid that competition.

... or play to win!

 

Rook    600   .jpg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

He never addressed that the determined STUPID would always be with us.

Jesus was only 3 1/2 years on Earth in a role of Teacher and Master. He had not enough time for "stupid" subjects .....

.... for example;

( would his  true disciple reject false, pagan customs, as playing chess, toasting,  exchange gifts and feast, Pinata... etc)

(or what sort of intimacy  are allowed and what are forbidden  between male and female couple ......)   :))).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@The Librarian you mentioned computer games i believe or PS4 and such like. Many of such games are for one person only, one player, and sometimes people shut themselves off in a room all alone to play these games. Mo son who is now 24 does this. It may be a 'wind down' after work for him but he does spend many hours through the night playing such games. 

As for Chess I used to love it at school, but it seemed to fade out of my life as i became more active as a teenager.  Mods didn't play chess, they danced, rode scooters and spent their money on clothes and records. 

Agree with @Srecko Sostar that Jesus wasn't concerned about such trivial things. 

But there are many things one could disagree with if one was as piccy as the GB. For instance Bridesmaids at weddings. Yes JW's have Bridesmaids even if they call them by a different name. But of course Bridesmaids are based on superstition and traditions of men. 

There was once I was at a Witness gathering / party and the youngsters were playing music. I had to say no no to one song which they started to play, but no one else seemed to object to it. The song 'I'm just a teenage dirtbag baby'. It's horrible.

Yet many years ago when I lived in Bristol a popular Elder of the Avonmouth Congregation would go around whistling 'Bohemian Rhapsody'. When i objected to it and told him why, he didn't care and continued to whistle it.  The song by Queen was sung by a homosexual and was about murder.  'Put a gun against his head, pulled the trigger now he's dead', Yes, lovely.

So you see we could object to so much in life. GB stop trying to turn people into puppets. You already have your Elder puppets,

'Hey GB leave the Congregants alone'  (sorry it's a take off of Another Brick in the Wall ) 'Hey teacher leave those kids alone' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Avrek

      Avrek 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.