Chad3229 just pulled a fast one on me. Good one 
Learned a new move today.. I dub it: the Pissy move
En passant (from French: in passing) is a move in the board game of chess.[1] It is a special pawn capture which can occur immediately after a player makes a double-step move from its starting position, and an enemy pawn could have captured it had the pawn moved only one square forward. The opponent captures the just-moved pawn as if taking it "as it passes" through the first square. The resulting position is the same as if the pawn had moved only one square forward and the enemy pawn had captured normally.
The en passant capture must be done on the very next turn, or the right to do so is lost.[2] It is the only occasion in chess in which a piece captures but does not replace the captured piece on its square. If an en passant capture is the only legal move available, it must be made. En passant capture is a common theme in chess compositions.
![[Image: Ajedrez_captura_al_paso_del_peon.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fae%2FAjedrez_captura_al_paso_del_peon.png)
Learned a new move today.. I dub it: the Pissy move
En passant (from French: in passing) is a move in the board game of chess.[1] It is a special pawn capture which can occur immediately after a player makes a double-step move from its starting position, and an enemy pawn could have captured it had the pawn moved only one square forward. The opponent captures the just-moved pawn as if taking it "as it passes" through the first square. The resulting position is the same as if the pawn had moved only one square forward and the enemy pawn had captured normally.
The en passant capture must be done on the very next turn, or the right to do so is lost.[2] It is the only occasion in chess in which a piece captures but does not replace the captured piece on its square. If an en passant capture is the only legal move available, it must be made. En passant capture is a common theme in chess compositions.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
