Most Helpful Opinions
- Master Age: 461 y
- 1 y
ty for MHO
I'm only choosing it so that G@Gs won't choose morons to be MHO.
- 1 y
@Aiko_E_Lara thank you again, its full of morons
Well, that is very interesting00 Reply
What Girls & Guys Said
We need a chess board with aliens and predators for pieces. Nlor two different color alien hives. Not THAT would be cool. Also females can't be bishops so that's pretty funny. Switch them up with nuns I guess 🤪👍029 Reply
They're actually female bishop's that exist and there is no female equivalent of bishop so bishop is not a gendered label
I guess it depends on culture. Most of Christianity uses scripture as guidance and it basically says a woman cannot be of the cloth or preach. It's actually a farce. I'm not being a misogynist that's what it says. Women are not to teach men or preach the word of God. So it's hilarious when they try to become clergy. It's basically a selfish act of pride if they're doing it against His will. The whole thing is silly tbh. If you dont care about God's word why are you there? XD
Chances are that is also the rule of those supremacist so called "holy" roman empires who tortures anyone for just simply not having the same belief. The rules of always been switching throughout the years because god never said there have to be popes or bishops to worship him. Also search Pope Joan. The first female pope in medieval times so she's not something considered new but it just have been there.
The probability why there are less female popes and bishops is because women just chose not to because in order to be on top of the ladder, also requires a lot of responsibilities and having to go through a lot to get there
I get what you are saying but Pope Joan is not known to have been confirmed by the sources for one thing. I am saying forget organized religion for a second. You are basing your religion on a set of texts which are supposedly handed down by God and His chose few. The scriptures are 100% clear on who can and cannot teach and preach. If you take scripture as your source material and then go against it then exactly what are the foundations holding it together and exactly where are you basing your morality and the rules/laws? It's silly. If you feel that way then you might as well toss the bible out the window because clearly you aren't taking the source material seriously. I'm fairly certain that all Abrahamic religions strictly forbid women from preach the Word of God or teaching men. Like I said though I personally don't have a hat in this fight. People will do what/as they please. But...
1 Timothy 2:11 ESV
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
1 Timothy 2:12 ESV s
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Corinthians 14:34 ESV
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says
Titus 2:1-15 ESV
But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ...
My beef is people dont practice what they preach. not just about religion but politics too. example: being pro life but against welfare safety nets so the babies dont starve.
How about no because it's not always everything that i don't really believe in the bible. Also there is nothing in chess is really associated with a bible rules so yes you're saying that bible to prove it is actually not valid. But before you say they are just faces and they are not human beings, how come everyone agreed there is a king and queen in chess and they're both gendered? So that just means the analysis i used is just based on something obvious. And the parts of female popes and bishops exist even if they are not in the bible, still means they exist regardless.
Well ask yourself what the word "bishop" means and then research it's origins. Yeah that basically says it all. Considering the game came out in the 12th century the only bishops at the time were men of the cloth of the christian faith and that was it. So it's imho very relevant. Without Christianity "Bishops" wouldn't exist, period. The only time other faiths have bishops were in recent times in the mid 20th century. So given the time frame yeah, Bishops couldnt be female lol. The pieces are based around a 12th Century European Feudal Court. That's it, there's nothing more to it. And yeah a female pope is as real as the Easter Bunny. But that's not saying much really. And honestly I'm not looking to argue about it but this is really the crux of the issue. You could get away with female knights, you had Joan of Arc for instance. You can have female pawns because after all what is a pawn? A pawn, and they can be used as such regardless of gender.
1: someone having spiritual or ecclesiastical supervision over others: such as
a: an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic clergyperson ranking above a priest, having authority to ordain and confirm, and typically governing a diocese
b: any of various Protestant clerical officials who superintend other clergy
c: a Mormon high priest presiding over a ward or over all other bishops and over the Aaronic priesthood
anyways i said my piece, moving on now
Because you're talking about the word it so you're not talking about chess bishop. So really would you let a bishop chess piece replace a real bishop? You're something called terminologies actually. Also you just give the meaning of bishop without actually showing something in there saying that only bishops are male. But like what i said, even if they don't have to follow the rule of female bishop can still be called bishop regardless and chess pieces is not really related to bible's. Also why do we all agree that angels look like the way they look in churches when they look creepy in the bibles? So yeah in theory angels are creeps but they can be portrayed as anything
Also back to terminology, there is no way a real bishop would be in a war.
If you're talking about adam and steve then they are both kings. Also another point would be the reason why the bishop pieces have a cut is because they are not real bishops. chesspulse.com/.../ So why does it matter if you're not alone? You're also not alone being owned by logic here. They all stop arguing as soon as i mention the fact that there are female bishops and the fact that chess has nothing to do with a bible. However you are the only one desperate enough really divert the topic into the bible even if it has nothing to do with it
So if they are not bishop pieces then they would just be called war elephants. But still that is just a term. No because you like to take things so literally do you actually believe coconut crabs are made of coconuts?
depending on how you look at it female bishops simply do not exist. Just like anyone trying to claim there are more than 2 genders. You can claim it till you're blue in the face but it doesn't make it so. however i dont much care anymore. I've said my piece. The Bishop simply would never have existed without the Catholic and Orthodox clergy which would never have taken a woman into their ranks for such a position as it would have been blasphemy. The idea of female bishops today in positions created by the RCC in the first place is laughable at best. Then again I suppose we do live in a world now where anyone can be any gender on any different day and invent new ones out of their asses so i guess if you live in that world anything's possible.
Another terminology is rooks are birds but why are they castles in chess? Also vice versa why doesn't the rook bird look like a castle? Of course you would never understand it if you just like to take everything so literally. Of course i forgot to mention that words change over time. We all say angels are sweet and innocent but originally they are killers
Also i wasn't even talking about bishops today. That bishop i actually give us a medieval bishop so you can laugh on eat all you want and even if it's not known it's not going to change the fact that it exists. Simply because i just read the meaning of bishop again and has nothing to do with being only male in the meaning description. Unlike kings and queens bishops of no male and female counterpart so it is genderless.
Also what you're trying to prove is actually like what feminist try to say like they keep saying that feminism is about equality because in original it is but it turns out to be something different actually. So this is like in theory vs in practice. I'm going with what the practice have to show us because action speaks louder than words
bro its like claiming to be pro choice and a Christian you CANNOT be both. It's like saying you worship satan yet you're a christian. it doesn't make sense. You're either a Christian and follow scripture or you dont. C'mon now this is just getting ridiculous. You said you aren't christian so ofc I dont expect you to understand. But can a Christian also be a Muslim at the same time? Can a Muslim be a Jew? no You're either a Christian or you're not. It's like a muslims saying they're muslim and saying Mohammad is not a prophet. wut? XD
That is what fanatics would actually say. Also what does being a pro choice have anything to do with worshipping a different god? There had been a lot of bible rules that had been updated today and of course they're always everyone who uses the no true scotsman fallacy that anyone who don't do this or that are not real catholics or real christians like you all want christianity like how you wanted it to be which is why people don't take religious seriously anymore. You know christian we're also against technology right because of witchcraft thingy? How come you're now modernized? Oh now the rules have changed because you yourself is using the internet and real christians don't use it because it's witchcraft
no dude these are scriptural LAWS. As in God said these things. C'mon now. You are living your life against God's will? Preaching when He clearly states not to? If you aren't doing it for Him you're doing it out of arrogance and thus are not a Christian. Most denominations of Christianity strictly forbit female preaching, not just the RCC. But again we've spoken enough on it.
This is so bad. And you've never read a bible this will be my last response to you because talking to someone who is completely ignorant on such a subject is just painful.
They refuse to listen to God’s Word.
8. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
9. 1 John 3:8-10 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Just like what any other questions would say, "what i believe is the real law" so ok you won't consider me a Christian so what? That became nothing more but just a label now. Because i can also say a true christian wouldn't believe that god is not selfish he would actually torture anyone against his point of view. But yes i know how monopolies work
And also you keep saying it is your last response but you still keep coming back anyway. Also you failed to realize that your argument is appealing to faith which is a logical fallacy actually turn into a circular reasoning. So you want to focus on that while you ignore the fact that you're basically just avoided my other questions that involves the same principle that can also backfire your own logic
So according to that verses you are talking about, that basically mean that every other religion or atheists would go to hell just because they are not christians and they don't listen to god's words. Another way to prove that christians just really like to claim monopoly for the discussion of religion for their gains and of course using that as a weapon in attempt to conquer the world. So many things that actually contradicts what god really said.
Am i even saying i am done? If you're done, why do you even have to come back? Do you seriously know what you're saying though? Because it don't seem like it. Also like i actually care if you don't care. Logic also doesn't care about your feelings and you not caring.
- Yoda Age: 531 y
You're wrong but why worry about that little detail.17 Reply
Before you say I'm "worried", I clearly said "Nothing important really." I did an explanation of it but if you're not worried, why do you feel the need to say i'm wrong without even explaining anything?
Ok, an explanation. You start with the statement that all officials start as pawns... not true. Not even sure where you pulled that bit of info from. Clearly Bishops and Knights were male-only at the advent of chess. Your whole premise is flawed and any bit of trivial thought about it clearly shows you are wrong.
Bishops and Knights are not even gendered to begin with. The only thing gendered here are the kings and queens. There had been female bishops and female knights but they're still called bishops and knights regardless and also, one does not simply climb the ladder without being a pawn first. www.google.com/search And really, you're asking why when i'm worried when I can ask you the same. Why do you even have to care? I mean it's obvious that all pawns can never be kings so they must be females but they can also be any other officials as well. So yeah you can just believe they're male and lie to yourself when it's already obvious.
Whatever dude... you do you.
Ok you too as well lying to yourself.
You realize chess pieces aren't real people, right? They don't really have a gender.
Then they don't have to be kings and queens if that's the case but why do we all agree in that? You're just looking for loopholes because maybe you feel insecure? Analyzing it just makes it obvious. We all have to agree that white moves first but do other races care?
- Anonymous(36-45)1 y
Knights... Not Female
Bishops... Not Female
Rooks... Not Female27 Reply
Sure you can believe it but it is getting obvious that they're all female so it's either you like yourself or just admit it
- Opinion Owner1 y
i dont understand your reply
It doesn't take a genius.
- Opinion Owner1 y
You are having some sort of breakdown. go to sleep
Yet you haven't given a single point. So if you are not having a breakdown, what's with the ad hominems? More like you're having a breakdown because of how i explain they are all female and your insecurities are showing
- Opinion Owner1 y
go to sleep
- New 1 y
How about you go to sleep instead? Because you're not in a position to just tell me to go to sleep. So you go to sleep forever
- Anonymous(18-24)1 y
There is a difference between could be female and is female. They are pawns. I’m sure the creators were not thinking they are all female.02 Reply
Then if they "could" also be male, how come they can't be kings? So yeah the most accurate ones would be pawns being females. Even if I use "could", that educated guess is already very obvious.
Even if it's not intentional, they also never intentionally made pawns males so
- Anonymous(30-35)1 y
Love the boopies on the rook. Nice pose. lol00 Reply
I like it00 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
No... because the idea of a female bishop was totally unthinkable in the Catholic church for eons. The first female bishop was not appointed until this year. The first anglican one was in the late 1980s. So nobody playing chess ever thought of the bishop piece as female. To say otherwise would be like claiming that people in the 1930s thought the "milkman" was a female job.
I'd say that the pawn could be male or female given that female warriors are a historical fact (even if it was rare overall) in multiple cultures. Also keep in mind that originally only the King and foot soldier were even human. The other pieces were animals (horses & elephants) or military equipment (chariot, often depicted as a castle tower now). I'm sure you would say that an Elephant, horse or tower could be a human Queen. So the 'promotion' is not literally like changing a human's title. If it were -- I'd guess - all of the pieces would probably look the same and have some little indicator on them to tell you what they are.
*would say, should be: would not say
Chess is not even canon to the real world and in reality, queens don't really attack like queens in chess so with that being said, it's safe to assume there are female bishops but only in chess. www.google.com/search
And there's a logical reason why pawns can never be kings is probably because they are never male.
Then there's no reason to believe that you're right because a promotion in chess does not require any real world logic. Next.
Then what genders are queens when there's a male counter part to it then? Like your bishop example, there's no female counter part to it so bishops can be female. Even if it's not require any real world logic, the obvious thing is just there and unlike you, i just don't really lie to myself.
Also, so does war is not black and white. But why do we all agree in that in chess?
@Aiko_E_Lara "And there's a logical reason why pawns can never be kings is probably because they are never male." -- It's almost like you've never played chess. The objective is to kill or capture (effectively) the king. Obviously you will never be able to promote to a piece that you can never lose. Also obviously the king has a special role. Next
Yeah sure you want to make that hasty assumption. So what do you seriously think pawns can be kings? So it's more like you have never played just before. So yeah your reasoning is because they cannot be king because they have special roles, that i can also easily argue that they cannot be queen's because there are also special and which is why there is only one queen. But still doesn't remove the fact that all pawns can transform into queens so that is saying something. At this point you're just looking for loopholes when it's starting to become obvious because you're probably insecure
Dude, I started playing chess at like age 5 and I played competitively for years. Next.
And what does that have to do with anything? It's not like it's necessary to learn the history of the pieces in order for you to actually know how to play it so? And here's something you missed. The reason why bishops have a slash on their heads is because they're suppose to be war elephants and they're shape resembles an elephant trunk. So how come you really insisted they really are bishops like priests? www.chess.com/.../why-the-bishop-has-cut-on-it-s-head So how come you're so ignorant about that? So that "bishop" had became more of a term