Brainteaserfan

Not always. Should my justification for 2+2=4 be, "it looks beautiful," or "it sounds right?" Sure, I agree with you that God's moral code is beautiful, but don't you think we should believe for more than that? I cannot comprehend following not telling a lie when it would benefit me, if I just believed in not telling a lie, "because it sounds beautiful." Do you have a statistic to show this? And by the same token, I'm sure many believe that Mr. Obama should be jailed for life too. There are almost 7000000000 opinions on earth, so if your "many" is .000001 of them, there are still, "many."

Not that I agree with A Tripolation, but one major difference between jumping off a cliff and hoping that you can fly, and religion, is that you hope to get something out of religion. Also, there is a little more evidence for religion than any of your analogies IMO.

Evil bible says that Jesus spoke to them in parables lest they be healed. The NIV says that He spoke to them in parables because they have already hardened their hearts, to me meaning that they would choose not to understand if He spoke to them about heaven directly. I may be wrong, if I am, please explain it to me, I don't want any more than anyone else to follow a false religion. Blind faith? Sort of, but not completely. Many sections of the Bible have been supported by archeology and written records. Also, many have been supported through science. (note: not the same as proving false or dealing with miracles.) How so? For instance, times such as when a baby is to be circumcised, how to wash your body after messing with dead people, closely approximate what science seems to recommend today. By history, things such as cities which have been discovered that were mentioned in the Bible. If you want more items, ask me, or better yet, google them or do some other research in sites that claim to support the Bible. Then check with sites that don't on the same things. My conclusion is that there is substantial evidence for the Bible.

Sure, I can give you one. A man at our church was diaganosed with cancer. They held an anointing service and when the doctors went in, no cancer. Ready for another? Our pastor (he wasn't our pastor then), was involved in a severe accident. After several weeks of recovery, he could still not lift more than 25 lbs. Again, the church held an anointing service. The next day, he could lift >100 lbs. You can choose to believe in an alternate explanation, but it seems likely to me that they were miracles. These are not the only examples of modern miracles in our <50 person church. I picked a random one as an example, honest. Here is what the NIV says for Matthew 13 10-15 10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them. This says something quite different than what the evil bible quote seems to say. The NIV seems to indicate that the people won't understand because they have calloused, or in other words, hardened, their hearts.

You keep wanting to point out that God punishes people needlessly. I have tried to sensibly refute this, but your definition of punish does not seem to agree with my dictionary, as pointed out quite a while ago. Are you going to make a new point?

So you believe because physical science can't prove your beliefs wrong? I'd write up why I believe, but I have many assignments due right now.

I disagree. How does science support miracles? How could science falsify things that (supposedly) didn't happen? However, history and archeology can, and have, supported miracles and God IMO. So have many investigations into the Bible.

I don't understand why I should split it. I didn't need to simplify past the first fraction on the initial question. Dr Rocket answered my question perfectly. I have another quick question: if you are finding the (sqrt of 2x)/(the sqrt of x), can you just cancel the x's and get sqrt of 2, x positive for an answer? And if the numerator was x squared, you'd have sqrt of x for your answer? Thanks! I have another question too. If the conjugate of a + b is a - b, is -a + b also a conjugate?

Thanks!

I got this wrong in a test. Now I'm sitting and puzzling. The initial fraction is what the answer key said, the last, mine. What did I do wrong in: 2x/(1+4x) = (2x/x)/(1/x+4x/x) = 2/(1/x+4) = 2(x/1)+2(1/4) = 2x+1/2 When I substitute 10 for x, the answers are different. If there is a link or source, it would be very helpful too. Thanks!

Actually, it is a pyramid. From the wiki you provided: "The tetrahedron is one kind of pyramid,"

Do you want us to answer in letters?

Most perhaps, but not by much. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

Thanks!

It won't help to get upset with A Tripolation.

The Romans may have written about Jesus; it may have been lost. It was not, "quite a long time" when compared to several other major historical figures.

How do you view wealthy people? I said: IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, they do help bail out our country via (a) the taxes while they are alive, and (b) from the death tax. (not to mention the tax on whoever receives some of their fortune as an inheritance, I'm not certain of the current rules.) Secondly, a rich person generally will want a nice house, clothes, car, mowed lawn etc, and will create jobs for others who are not as fortunate. IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy. Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly. Greg said: In th usa all that wealthy people seem to do is evade taxes. It is the majority of ordinary people who can't afford the smart ar$e lawyers and accountants who collectively pay the bulk of the tax revenue. Wealthy people might therefore be regarded as a drain on the economy - taking a great deal of wealth and funnelling it off shore into Swiss bank accounts and not purchasing locally etc. --------------- Maybe, but I see no evidence that they aren't paying taxes. If they weren't, this would partially fall into the category of not honestly acquired wealth, which I didn't claim to support. Even if they didn't pay any taxes, though, they would still create jobs. -------------- Tony said: Obviously there is much truth in what you say and I did say I might be biassed. I am not trying to make a case for equality of income but I do feel that some people and some organisations are so rich that they could afford to put more into the national pot. I also feel that rewards for effort could be more sensibly distributed. I find it obscene that a pop singer can earn many times the income of a brain surgeon or that many people in local government in the UK earn much more than the salary of the Prime Minister. I feel that we are getting rather off topic so I will repeat the point that I originally made - I think that allowing the National Debt to increase year on year is dangerous and a sensible strategy would involve shrinking it year by year. ---------------------- It is strange how much celebrities make, but if people want to pay them lots, they'll probably help bail us out and create jobs, so I won't complain.

Not to mention that He isn't really responsible for Our sins.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding your post. I was replying to RealityCheck on whether an atheist could reach heaven, and your conclusion is that it takes works and believing to make it to heaven? That's what is was telling RealityCheck, only emphasizing the belief part. Are you trying to support my position? confused...

Under, "christianity". Quote, "based on the Bible" http://i.word.com/idictionary/christianity I see what you meant now. However, "Good deeds do not matter," can be taken two ways.

I see no evidence for this in the Bible. John 14:6 KJV 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Seriously this time. I don't want to go too far off topic, but.... IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, they do help bail out our country via (a) the taxes while they are alive, and (b) from the death tax. (not to mention the tax on whoever receives some of their fortune as an inheritance, I'm not certain of the current rules.) Secondly, a rich person generally will want a nice house, clothes, car, mowed lawn etc, and will create jobs for others who are not as fortunate. IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy. Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly.

Oops, I hit post too soon. What I meant to say is that when in a depression, the government shouldn't do anything that they wouldn't do when the economy is going well. No.

I suppose you are talking to me. It will devalue their currency, however it will effectively be a tax on everyone who holds their currency, instead of just those who live in their country. If tony lives in the US, or whatever country does this, then they will be taking money from him if he holds that currency.

Okay, now let's apply that to the economy. A depression too is incurable; the government, like the doctors, should do nothing. However, I would disagree that a cold is incurable, we just don't know how to cure it yet. Similarly, a depression is not/may not be incurable, we don't know how to cure it yet though. Besides, our body will get rid of it fast enough, just like the economy will get rid of a depression by itself quickly. Just like we don't try out new medicines or techniques on humans first, we shouldn't try them out on the US first. Let the little economies try them out first, and we won't use them unless there is almost certain evidence that a procedure will help the economy. In the meantime, I propose the gov should leave the economy alone.