Brainteaserfan

James 2, verse 26, NKJV, quote, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=James+2%3A14-26&version=NKJV It does matter what we do even after Jesus has saved us.

Perhaps, but in this case I'd say it's more like how much we know about the brain's reactions/psychology. There are more economists who disagree, IMO, on what to do when there is a depression than doctors on what to do if you have a serious cold (a depression IMO is a sort of sickness to the economy). You mean that you are richer than the government of America. (Which is not strictly true, because the government can just print more money to pay its debts.)

Economists do not have a handle on depression IMO. There are theories, but none are certain, because it is extremely difficult to prove a cause/effect relationship in economics. However, it is easy to bend data to look like it is a cause/effect relationship.

Please, this isn't us vs them. If the US falls or suffers economically, I think we can all agree that there will be a negative impact on the rest of the world. I have a different idea on drugs. (sure, I want the US meddling soldiers home too, but after the US brings them back, how about we don't kill them ) Why don't we just legalize drugs (we meaning the world and US) If we police it more, there will just be a higher profit for those involved. Lastly, I want you to know that I agree that immigration is a serious problem for the US, but I just don't have time to debate it.

I don't understand how which time zone matters. I'm talking about our current system, if you lived close to a line. I'm not saying that we don't have to all get up at the same time, eat at the same time etc. I understand that there would be different office hours, I don't see what that has to do with my post (I might just be really sleepy), but 1 time zone would fix all those problems that I mentioned IMO. Edit: I reread your post, I think I mostly see what you meant now by not stating the time zone, sorry. Refer to my reply to imatfaal, please. I think we can all agree that metric is useful. However, america still doesn't use it. We don't use it not because it's not useful though. We just don't like to change from what we are used to. ... and then all our times are 2x as long. More mistakes, more time spent converting, harder for computers etc.

I'm talking about god more generally. However, "made in God's image" could have a few meanings IMO. The Bible calling Him a he does not clarify, because if he was "no" gender, then we would still use he.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 3 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 530705 people have so far undertaken this activity. Really, God is a "she"? When the gender is unknown, we use he.

You are on the edge of a time zone. You have a meeting at 3. You look at your watch, it says 1:45. However you are in a different time zone. So it would be a step to convert for you. Also, if a concert had flyers out, "concert at 4", and you are in a different time zone, the concert might be halfway over by the time you got there. Third case scenerio. I send an email to a friend in china for a video chat at 2. They think that I meant their time so I am awakened in the middle of the night. Also, as trade, travel, and communication improve, IMO, 1 time zone will become even more useful. Edit: ps, sorry for the short sentences.

Hard to pinpoint the cause. IMO, two big things that have hurt us as a country is not using more nuclear power and the addition of social security, Medicare, medicaid etc to the govs role. The gov does not manage money well. Let us save our own money. On stimulus etc, this is an awesome music vid IMO @swansont maybe you can discuss the two issues that Jackson brought up with someone who does have the authority to do something? (Maybe you have, I don't know)

Whew, I don't know if I have time to answer all that! Here goes.... Thanks on the first paragraph, that's interesting. From what I've read (could be wrong), has been stuff like this article. Quote "Presser and Chaves determine that attendance has been stable (at about 25%) since the 1990s. That finding challenges the idea that our society is increasingly secular, or that the changes since the 1990s—technological improvements, the increase of scientific knowledge, and urbanization— have any impact on church attendance." That's from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/novemberweb-only/145-42.0.html So, since the fall of the USSR, church/religion/Christianity has remained relatively stable. At many of our schools, Christianity has been, IMO, taught less proportionately than other, less practiced ones. Why are the only two options convert or destroy? I don't view unbelievers that way. Christianity is not a blend of religions, it is the Jewish faith plus the NT (written by men who claimed to follow Jesus around 70ish ad.) I see what you mean by war is good for religion and vice versa. He is not a war god. Those other adjectives I agree with though (except perhaps revengeful, it would depend on your definition. If you're wondering why, well, I love children, therefore I hate abortion. If you love what is righteous/good, you must hate what is bad/evil. I would also use the adjectives loving, faithful etc when describing Him though I'm going to skip the first bold paragraph due to lack of time. Maybe later. No relative or friend would help you if you couldn't maintain your independence? Churches do help those who are not tithing. (at least, my church will if you need it) To me the Social Security cut isn't that bad, because those who I know who receive it do not really need it much. However, I feel your pain with the budget cuts. My parents would like to help me with college expenses, but my father who work for the fed hasn't received a pay increase for quite a while as well and is looking at a rather bleak pay future. To clarify: I don't like bush or the republicans, but I'm trying to point out that there's plenty of blame to go round. I'm out of time now, and don't know if I'll be able to continue putting much time into this thread, so I may "disappear".

AFAIK, we weren't monitoring the ocean nearly as much as we do today back then, so we really don't have much to compare to in order to answer that.

While the Republicans did start wars, and I'm not pleased with them for it, Obama has started a war in Libya, and he hasn't done a whole lot to get our troops out of the battlefield in other countries. The spending cuts are unsubstantial (if that's a word.) http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13484 We aren't taking that much from seniors as far as I know. I'm still left a little confused on how war is good for religion.

That seems a lot like saying, "I predict that it will precipitate more in April than December." Useful, but not quite what I would consider predicting.

Sorry, everything looks like a brainteaser to me. I don't understand how it would go against the rules if the posters met the qualifications I described, but interesting point about where the server sits, although that shouldn't have any effect on what they say IMO, because how would they know where it sits (till now). I'm going to do some research on legality of that because I find it fascinating how leaders have decided to set up laws. I'm not trying to say that the mods can't use common sense and I'm not trying to say that someone should post a reply with a link in it. I totally understand what your saying (I think) and agree mostly, except o. whether it is strictly against the rules. No, I don't want to find such stuff, why risk getting in trouble for something like a book (or anything for that matter).

Beauty of clip-ons. Seconded.

Agreed, but not strictly true, if someone was from a country where it was legal, than you could post the link and you'd be following the rules. Ghaz may be living somewhere where it's legal too.

This is getting rather off topic. I think you'd need other options besides the two extremes, and besides, if you were elected and there was a downturn in the economy, you'd be hurt for the rest of your life (assuming it wasn't put to a quick end at the termination of your term.)

To the 1st part: True. That's what I meant to say. To the 2nd: disadvantages of the current system that do not happen in another system are advantages of the other system over the current one.

For starters, some towns are in between two time zones, making it difficult, and there are lots who regularly travel between them. It, IMO, would eliminate much confusion.

And if I was a politician then, I'd create laws that favor poorer people and take a lot from those richer ones for them. I could be confident that the majority would vote for me, and I'd spend time relaxing. Still.. it might work. I'd love to see this tried in a smaller country successfully. However, I'd also like for those in power to have had more education than the average person, so if people would just do several hrs of research each year with the current system, we'd already have a lot better place to live IMO.

No, they try to get reelected too. Sure, they try to make it better for their friends and family too, but if randomly selected, you'd have no incentive to work in the interests of the people.

Wow, the lighting must be very different for the two photos. This, "not from the piece in the previous photo but from a different one" is what lead me to believe they were different, sorry.

No, we wouldn't be better off. At least if a current politician did something terrible, they might lose their office. If randomly selected, you'd just be trying to make it better for you, your family, and your friends.

You would call a country that went from wilderness to superpower in less than 200 years a failure?

Again, not to disagree. But won't it generally choose animal/plants that are better suited for the environment? How is that bad?