Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Logic is logic. There is no such thing as magisterial and ministerial logic. Magisterial and ministerial reason, yes, since this is logic applied to premises.
    No you are trying to stand like a judge over the Holy scriptures of Our Lady Unicorn. You can't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Mine are self-consistent.
    That's a laugh.

    Ok So what is your position on divorce, is it right or wrong?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    No you are trying to stand like a judge over the Holy scriptures of Our Lady Unicorn. You can't do that.
    No, just applying logic, as per proper reasoning. Even some of the IPU devotees are trying to say something halfway sensible, e.g. in the dark such a thing would be invisible in one sense since it couldn't be seen, but might be called "pink" because that is what it would look like in white light. But same could be said about any pink object.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    That's a laugh.
    Not really; British comedy makes me laugh quite often (Dawkins' ranting can be quite comedic in another way ), but this wasn't it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Ok So what is your position on divorce, is it right or wrong?
    Easy. See On Divorce and Adultery in the NT by James Patrick Holding
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 16-12-2008 at 12:24 AM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  3. #3
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Easy. See On Divorce and Adultery in the NT by James Patrick Holding
    I said what is your position. Given that article seems to do a lot of name calling it is clear they think that divorce is ok for a man to divorce a wife if she is guilty of fornication.

    Is that the only circumstance that you believe divorce to be justified?

    (NB Thread split because I invisage this topic could generate a lot of comment in its own right).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I said what is your position. Given that article seems to do a lot of name calling
    No, accurate labelling of a maladjusted misotheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    it is clear they think that divorce is ok for a man to divorce a wife if she is guilty of fornication.
    The Apostle Paul allows divorce and remarriage for abandonment by an unbeliever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Is that the only circumstance that you believe divorce to be justified?
    There are two explicit ones: sexual infidelity and abandonment. The Bible also teaches a graded absolutism or hierarchy of morals, so escaping violence is an implicit grounds (as JP says, a high context understanding, which is part of a grammatical-historical understanding).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    (NB Thread split because I invisage this topic could generate a lot of comment in its own right).
    Sure, a good decision. But I'm not going to comment much.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    No, accurate labelling of a maladjusted misotheist.
    Well as Robert tries to claim some sort of moral high ground in name-calling it is pretty hypocritical in my view considering he has sunk to the same depths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The Apostle Paul allows divorce and remarriage for abandonment by an unbeliever.
    So Paul allows it but Christ doesn't? And according to Mark, Christ didn't even mention fornication as an excuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    There are two explicit ones: sexual infidelity and abandonment. The Bible also teaches a graded absolutism or hierarchy of morals, so escaping violence is an implicit grounds (as JP says, a high context understanding, which is part of a grammatical-historical understanding).
    This sounds like some comfortable compromise to me. For centuries the church said that divorce was impossible. Justified by primarily by Mark's reporting of the words of Christ himself.

    Matthew (which lends heavily from Mark) adds the fornication exception and Paul's exception is added later again and is itself not a direct teaching of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Sure, a good decision. But I'm not going to comment much.
    That's a pity but despite what you think there are other people with intering opinions on matters of faith and ethics which don;t agree with you.

    As the name suggests I'm considering more than one of these threads and have a topic of discussion already worked out for TBQ #2, but thought it best to let interesting parties talk about divorce first...
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575

    The Bible on divorce

    Priests shouldn't marry divorcees

    Leviticus 21:7-8
    'They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the LORD am holy—I who make you holy.

    Leviticus 21:14
    He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people,

    Ezekiel 44:22
    They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests.

    A man who questions a brides virginity and found to be wrong must wed for life

    Deuteronomy 22:13-19
    If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

    Rapists must marry their victims (if caught) and must marry for life

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29
    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    You cannot remarry someone you have divorced if they remarried

    Deuteronomy 24:1-4
    If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

    By analogy god seems to be saying there is no coming back if you leave worshiping him.

    Jeremiah 3:1
    "If a man divorces his wife
    and she leaves him and marries another man,
    should he return to her again?
    Would not the land be completely defiled?
    But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—
    would you now return to me?"
    declares the LORD.

    Malachi 2:16
    "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.

    Divorce is only allowed in the case of an adulterous wife

    Matthew 5:31-32
    It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

    Matthew 19:8-9
    Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

    Mark and Luke mentions no except to the divorce teaching

    Mark 10:2-12
    Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

    "What did Moses command you?" he replied.

    They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

    "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female'. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

    When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

    Luke 16:18
    "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Paul thinks it is better if people don't marry, or is they do stay celibate, or if they don't at least don't divorce. No exceptions are given but it appears that even if divorce is permitted remarriage is not.


    1 Corinthians 7:10-16
    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

    1 Corinthians 7:39-40
    A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    17,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    [B]

    ; they may marry only virgins .
    Means they will never find a wife
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    17,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    [B]1 Corinthians 7:10-16
    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

    1 Corinthians 7:39-40
    A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
    This is the why nobody wants to be a priest these days...spend entire life with one woman only....what a nightmare
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Well as Robert
    Do learn to catch up. See I am James Patrick Holding....deal with it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    tries to claim some sort of moral high ground in name-calling it is pretty hypocritical in my view considering he has sunk to the same depths.
    Stop your bellyaching. See the article on his site that discusses the challenge-riposte method of the biblical cultures,
    Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    So Paul allows it but Christ doesn't?
    Paul was Christ's chosen emissary, and wrote after Christ ascended, and was spelling out a new occurrence: with the growth of Christianity, there would be marriages between Christians and non-Christians, not an issue when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    And according to Mark, Christ didn't even mention fornication as an excuse.
    Already explained in that article: what Jesus taught, He taught hundreds of times with minor variations according to the audience. With this issue, He didn't always have to spell out that which was understood by all (high context).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    This sounds like some comfortable compromise to me. For centuries the church said that divorce was impossible. Justified by primarily by Mark's reporting of the words of Christ himself.
    More likely a low-context (mis)understanding by an increasingly gentile and legalistic church.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Matthew (which lends heavily from Mark) adds the fornication exception
    More likely, took a different example of one of Christ's many teachings on the topic, on one of the occasions where He spelt out what was already agreed on all sides in the dispute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    and Paul's exception is added later again and is itself not a direct teaching of Christ.
    It's still binding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    That's a pity but despite what you think there are other people with intering opinions on matters of faith and ethics which don;t agree with you.
    Then let them put their case. The mere fact of disagreement doesn't prove that I am wrong.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron
    This is the why nobody wants to be a priest these days...spend entire life with one woman only....what a nightmare
    I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Priests shouldn't marry divorcees
    Irrelevant for today, because the Levitical Priesthood is obsolete (Hebrews 7:12).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    A man who questions a brides virginity and found to be wrong must wed for life

    Rapists must marry their victims (if caught) and must marry for life
    Of course: this is an obligation on the rapists to support their victims for life, since there was no social welfare in those days. I answered a philosophy-religion prof about this issue, divorce, homosexual behaviour, and the role of the Law of Moses here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Malachi 2:16
    "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
    Indeed, divorce is always a sign of some failure in what should have been a permanent union (Jesus in Matthew 19:3–6 cites Gen. 1:12 and 2:24).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Paul thinks it is better if people don't marry,
    Because of "the current crisis" (1 Cor. 7:26).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    or if they do stay celibate,
    If they don't marry, then by definition they are celibate. The word you want above is "chaste".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    or if they don't at least don't divorce. No exceptions are given but it appears that even if divorce is permitted remarriage is not.[/B]
    No, since the believer is no longer bound if the unbeliever abandons him/her.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    1 Corinthians 7:10-16
    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
    Indeed. Also, note that "I, not the Lord" is not disclaiming authority, but that there was no command about the matter in Jesus's recorded statements while He was on Earth. See How Does 1 Cor. 7:6 Reconcile with Inspiration?
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  12. #12
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    If Robert likes to call himself JP then that is even more reason to call him Robert, I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    You can't justify base name-calling but labeling it satire. Robert is just a hypocritical thug and his poncing maneuvering for some sort of moral high ground on the charge of name-calling is just comical. Perhaps you could call it self-satire if such a concept is possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Paul was Christ's chosen emissary, and wrote after Christ ascended, and was spelling out a new occurrence: with the growth of Christianity, there would be marriages between Christians and non-Christians, not an issue when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees.
    That is one theory. Still it is funny that Christ would have to amend his teaching through Paul when he could have just said so when he was originally teaching on divorce less than a century earlier. It is interesting to note that no new teachings have been required in the 1,900 years since John the Theologian's death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Already explained in that article: what Jesus taught, He taught hundreds of times with minor variations according to the audience. With this issue, He didn't always have to spell out that which was understood by all (high context).
    Since he would have known it would be record by both Luke and Mark in one form and Matthew in another perhaps the problem was with the divine inspiration of the scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    More likely a low-context (mis)understanding by an increasingly gentile and legalistic church.
    Not at all. These traditions grew immediately out of the church fathers and were unquestioned for centuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    More likely, took a different example of one of Christ's many teachings on the topic, on one of the occasions where He spelt out what was already agreed on all sides in the dispute.
    Problem was with the divine inspiration then because by omitting a key clause just looks shoddy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It's still binding.
    If you accept Paul's letters as scripture. It also raises questions the moot point as to whether it was a sin between the time of Christ's teachings and Paul's letter.

    Could you just clarify that by Paul's teaching you are talking about 1 Corinthians 7?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Then let them put their case. The mere fact of disagreement doesn't prove that I am wrong.
    No but the fact that many highly trained theologians disagree with you as well as the largest christian church in the world is reason to think that you are not patently correct, even though you write as if you are.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    9,086

    No

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.
    The first part is not true. Paul's position on sex and marriage is often mis-represented. You need to look at I and II Corinthians as a whole to appreciate it's full context. In one place he says it is better to stay as you are than to change. If you are married, stay married. See esp. I Cor 6: 12 - 7:40.
    Last edited by Adamski; 16-12-2008 at 02:19 PM.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  14. #14
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.
    no paul actually said that it was better to be married than to be continually tempted

    the law requiring that priests be celibate is a church law (9th Century?) which is not applied across the board ie only to (western) latin rite catholics and even in there with exceptions (for instance if you are a married minister from another denomination then convert )

    some ( maybe all?) of the eastern (oriental) rites (referring here to those in union with rome not to those of the orthodox communion) permit priests to marry - for example the maronites of lebanon have fiercely guarded that right

    iirc in such rites:

    a man who is married cannot become a priest
    a man who is already a priest can then marry
    priest who has always been celibate or is widowed can become a bishop
    a bishop can never marry

    i am sure that there a quite a few latin rite priests who get "frustrated" by such "inconsistencies"
    Last edited by eclectic; 16-12-2008 at 02:22 PM.
    .

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely
    A misundestanding as shown above. Paul told Timothy (1 Tim. 4):

    1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
    2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
    3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
    4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
    5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

    The book of Hebrews (13:4) states:

    Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.
    That's a Roman Catholic Church rule for the Roman Rite. There are Eastern Rite priests who are part of that Communion who are allowed to marry, and the Roman Catholic Church regards married Eastern Orthodox priests as genuine priests. [Edit: I see that Eclectic has made the same point]
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 16-12-2008 at 02:26 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Some questions from an absolute beginner
    By The Backward OX in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-12-2008, 10:48 AM
  2. I need help and suggestions please! 10 Questions!!!
    By Ausknight in forum Chess Training
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 08:31 PM
  3. Couple of Questions for Howard Duggan?
    By Nutter in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26-08-2006, 01:00 AM
  4. Divorce
    By PHAT in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-06-2004, 12:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •