Its True.
1) (sec x)^4 - (tan x)^4
x1=0 ; x2=0 ; x3=0 ; x4=0
2) (sec x)^2 + (tan x)^2
x1=0 ; x2=0
you see they have same result . Equation is True.Where defined, (sec x)^4 - (tan x)^4 = (sec x)^2 + (tan x)^2. True or False?
this might be useful to you.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward123.htm
my assumption would be falseWhere defined, (sec x)^4 - (tan x)^4 = (sec x)^2 + (tan x)^2. True or False?
what do you think?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
True or False: If f(x) is a strictly decreasing function defined for all values of x, then f(0) < f(1).?
If f is strictly decreasing, then the larger x is, the smaller f(x) is, so f(0)%26gt;f(1).
Therefore the answer is False.
Another way to see this is the proof through calculus (if f was differentialbe).
By the mean value theorem, there exists some c such that 0%26lt;c%26lt;1 and f'(c)=(f(1)-f(0))/(1-0) =f(1)-f(0). Since f is strictly decreasing f'(c)%26lt;0 (this is true for all x, not just c). Therefore f(1)-f(0)=f'(c)%26lt;0 or f(1)%26lt;f(0).True or False: If f(x) is a strictly decreasing function defined for all values of x, then f(0) %26lt; f(1).?
Since f(x) is decreasing as x increases. Then f(0) %26lt; f(1) is false.
f(x) = -x is an example of such a function.
f(0) = 0
f(1) = -1
0 %26lt; -1 is falseTrue or False: If f(x) is a strictly decreasing function defined for all values of x, then f(0) %26lt; f(1).?
f(0)is 0 and has no assigned value and f(1) is therefore %26gt; f(0).
The ans. then must be true.
False.
By definition of a decreasing function,
when x gets larger,
the f(x) gets smaller.
Given x1 and x2, such that x1 %26lt; x2 (note: x gets larger)
Then f(x1) %26gt; f(x2) (note: f(x) gets smaller)
Therefore the answer is False.
Another way to see this is the proof through calculus (if f was differentialbe).
By the mean value theorem, there exists some c such that 0%26lt;c%26lt;1 and f'(c)=(f(1)-f(0))/(1-0) =f(1)-f(0). Since f is strictly decreasing f'(c)%26lt;0 (this is true for all x, not just c). Therefore f(1)-f(0)=f'(c)%26lt;0 or f(1)%26lt;f(0).True or False: If f(x) is a strictly decreasing function defined for all values of x, then f(0) %26lt; f(1).?
Since f(x) is decreasing as x increases. Then f(0) %26lt; f(1) is false.
f(x) = -x is an example of such a function.
f(0) = 0
f(1) = -1
0 %26lt; -1 is falseTrue or False: If f(x) is a strictly decreasing function defined for all values of x, then f(0) %26lt; f(1).?
f(0)is 0 and has no assigned value and f(1) is therefore %26gt; f(0).
The ans. then must be true.
False.
By definition of a decreasing function,
when x gets larger,
the f(x) gets smaller.
Given x1 and x2, such that x1 %26lt; x2 (note: x gets larger)
Then f(x1) %26gt; f(x2) (note: f(x) gets smaller)
Could the Mormons be false prophets in your best estimation as defined by the bible?
The Bible lists six identifying marks of false prophets, any one of which is sufficient for identification: (1) through signs and wonders they lead astray after false gods (Dt. 13:1-4); (2) their prophecies don't come to pass (Dt. 18:20-22); (3) they contradict God's Word (Isa. 8:20); (4) they bear bad fruit (Mt. 7:18-20); (5) men speak well of them (Lk. 6:26); and (6) they deny that Jesus, the one and only Christ, has come once and for all in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:3), thereby denying His sufficiency in all matters of life and godliness (2 Pe. 1:3). Most cults are founded upon false prophecies, which, if pointed out, offer an effective way to open blind eyes and rescue cultists. Mormonism boasts of its prophets -- but they have all been false. In the course of 18 years, founding prophet Joseph Smith made 64 specific prophecies. Only six of them were fulfilled -- fewer than 10 percent.Could the Mormons be false prophets in your best estimation as defined by the bible?
absolutely!!!
False religion based on false prophecy based on a false history that has no backing or evidence of it at all.
Not all the people in that religion claim to be prophets. But their founder did claim to be a prophet yet he dabbled in all kinds of stuff that is definitely not Christian. He was a very superstitious man. He was in the Masons, as well. That is where Mormonism got a lot of their rituals and symbols.
What has light to do with darkness?Could the Mormons be false prophets in your best estimation as defined by the bible?
The anti Mormon bigot is back with his army of ignoramuses
1- The LDS Church and it's prophets teach people to come unto Christ. They teach of Jesus Christ and God the Father, so I am really not sure what false Gods you speak of, unless of course you are calling God the Father and Jesus Christ false Gods.
2- There are many prophecies that have come true and some that have yet to come true. Not all the prophecies in Revelations have come true yet, but you would not refute that John was called of God.
3- Not sure how LDS contradicts God's word
4- What exactly is that bad fruit that LDS bear? Could it be the service that is renedered throughout the world which members of wards and branches world wide participate in on a regular basis? Or is it the hard working, people of integrity who are taught to be good citizens and live Christ-like lives?
5- Men speak well of Jesus, so does that make him false. In order for a person to be a true prophet, they have to be hated by everyone except their followers? Yeah I am not sure that is true. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were certainly not spoken well of, they still are not spoken well of by many non Mormons. Really I think all that is ( I would have to check the passage though) is that they are popular and Charismatic and seek popularity. The LDS leaders could careless about popularity, they only serve God, and that is all they care about.
6- We believe that Jesus is the ONLY savior of the world. Check out http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/鈥?/a>
Then tell us, honestly that we deny Christ.
I am sure that you know everything I have told you, but you are too busy trying to prove how evil we are, to open your mind and realize that we aren't the evil cult that many make us out to be. BTW- using the strict definition of cult, all religions are cults, LDS is no more of a Cult than any other religion. LDS is certainly not a dangerous cult.
You have a right not to believe us. But that does not mean that you have to attack and make false statements about us.
The only thing I can say to you is you spend too much time trying to figure out what the Mormons do wrong and not enough time researching and really studying the facts.
people need to stop putting other religions down, stop trying to find the wrongs in religions and start finding what is right for them.
let them worship how they like. If its wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if its right, well then......ya.
You are throwing a lot of accusations...but no proof. By their fruits ye shall know...show me the bad fruits...show me the negative outcomes from following the Gospel...for following the Prophet...for being a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So far you are just blowing so much smoke up an exit only hole.
None of the scriptures you mention contradict any teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
You claim some of Joseph Smith's prophecies are false, but you don't list any.
Please take a course in logic and try again.
Most LDS people would strongly disagree that they deny Christ, but you're right about the other issues. My only regret about leaving the LDS church is I didn't do it sooner.
The LDS denial of Christ is very subtle. A group of BYU students were praying to Jesus. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie rebuked them saying that they are to worship the father in Jesus' name, but not him directly. Tell that to the many people in the NT who prayed directly to Jesus including John the Beloved. Apparently they weren't blessed enough to hear McConkie's clarification.
On the false prophecy thing, its sad to see LDS apologists try to defend very testable, specific prophecies that didn't come true. They can't. He was speaking in the name of the Lord, there was no conditional ';if/when'; language, and it didn't come true. Why not study them if you're LDS?
Once you bring in the Book of Abraham embarassment, Smith caught at his own game with Kinderhook, DNA evidence and the B of M, Brigham Young's wild teachings, and you've got a clear picture of who Mr. Smith is and the early leaders he recruited. But you have to admire the skill of the con. Too bad it's so harmful to so many people.
Regarding the fruits of LDS people, my heart goes out to them. They view good works as a cause of salvation, not the result of God working in them. No wonder the depression rate is highest in Utah, young men suicide the highest, and I think ice cream consumption as well. So apparently depressed young men are killing themselves by eating ice cream. Kidding, but the fruits of a ';work your way to heaven'; approach is either arrogance or depression, that there's plenty of evidence for the latter.
To my Christian friends who criticize the LDS gospel, no, your works won't save you, but if you haven't experienced a change of heart since you believed, see no evidence of God working in you, wake up. You've haven't met Jesus. Wake up and see what's going on with your connection with God. If water's not coming out of the hose, it's probably not hooked up to a water source. 1 John speaks broadly and deeply about this.
The Mormons have claimed to be prophets? None of my morman friends have made any such claims.
I'm not a Mormon, but there's a huge hole in your logic:
1. Jesus could be a false prophet as defined in the Old Testament (Tanakh), and he is considered it by Judaism.
2. The Jewish religion could be considered false because of the deviations from the Canaanite faith that it came from.
3. Canaanite religion could be considered false because of the deviations from the Sumerian religion that it came from.
4. Sumerian religion could be considered false because of the deviations from the Indus valley traditions that it came from.
And those people from the Indus valley were definitely lying when they told people to stop worshiping animals from the Animism cults!
You're a former member? Well, I don't know how long you were, and how deeply involved, but you didn't learn anything about our prophets while you in the church. obviously.
What do you think the role of a prophet is--to predict the next lotto numbers? Prophecies, humph!
1) False gods? Who would those be? The only God we worship is Heavenly Father, who sent his son, Jesus.
2) Prophecies? Like. . .uh. . . Predicting the future? Our prophets are not for that purpose--they are instated to lead us.
3) I don't know how you think our prophets have ever contradicted God words. Give an example.
4) Bad fruit--our prophets are good men and have never lead us astray.
5) We speak well of them. You anti-Mormons certainly do not.
6) Our number one precept of our church is that Jesus is the Christ and that he has come in the flesh and will again.
according to limited understanding of the particular words. YES
but even the prophets of old spoke at times and the word of God in prophecy was not completed. but yet those prophets are still cannonized.
one in particular is Jonah. if my memory doesnt fail me.
He was told by God to go to a certain city and declare The destruction. the inhabitants of the city, fasted and prayed in sackloth and ashes and the previous prophecy of God was declared overturned.
let me ask you, was that prophet a false prophet because his prophecy failed.?
thus paul writes: prophecies will fail
Yes.
Theirs is a false church according to the Bible.
YES!! 1 John 2:22. %26lt;')))%26gt;%26lt;
They might be false prophets, but they're pretty good profiteers...5 billion in assets for a charity organization!
Most definitely!
Their ';prophets'; are false, so yeah.
absolutely!!!
False religion based on false prophecy based on a false history that has no backing or evidence of it at all.
Not all the people in that religion claim to be prophets. But their founder did claim to be a prophet yet he dabbled in all kinds of stuff that is definitely not Christian. He was a very superstitious man. He was in the Masons, as well. That is where Mormonism got a lot of their rituals and symbols.
What has light to do with darkness?Could the Mormons be false prophets in your best estimation as defined by the bible?
The anti Mormon bigot is back with his army of ignoramuses
1- The LDS Church and it's prophets teach people to come unto Christ. They teach of Jesus Christ and God the Father, so I am really not sure what false Gods you speak of, unless of course you are calling God the Father and Jesus Christ false Gods.
2- There are many prophecies that have come true and some that have yet to come true. Not all the prophecies in Revelations have come true yet, but you would not refute that John was called of God.
3- Not sure how LDS contradicts God's word
4- What exactly is that bad fruit that LDS bear? Could it be the service that is renedered throughout the world which members of wards and branches world wide participate in on a regular basis? Or is it the hard working, people of integrity who are taught to be good citizens and live Christ-like lives?
5- Men speak well of Jesus, so does that make him false. In order for a person to be a true prophet, they have to be hated by everyone except their followers? Yeah I am not sure that is true. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were certainly not spoken well of, they still are not spoken well of by many non Mormons. Really I think all that is ( I would have to check the passage though) is that they are popular and Charismatic and seek popularity. The LDS leaders could careless about popularity, they only serve God, and that is all they care about.
6- We believe that Jesus is the ONLY savior of the world. Check out http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/鈥?/a>
Then tell us, honestly that we deny Christ.
I am sure that you know everything I have told you, but you are too busy trying to prove how evil we are, to open your mind and realize that we aren't the evil cult that many make us out to be. BTW- using the strict definition of cult, all religions are cults, LDS is no more of a Cult than any other religion. LDS is certainly not a dangerous cult.
You have a right not to believe us. But that does not mean that you have to attack and make false statements about us.
The only thing I can say to you is you spend too much time trying to figure out what the Mormons do wrong and not enough time researching and really studying the facts.
people need to stop putting other religions down, stop trying to find the wrongs in religions and start finding what is right for them.
let them worship how they like. If its wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if its right, well then......ya.
You are throwing a lot of accusations...but no proof. By their fruits ye shall know...show me the bad fruits...show me the negative outcomes from following the Gospel...for following the Prophet...for being a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So far you are just blowing so much smoke up an exit only hole.
None of the scriptures you mention contradict any teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
You claim some of Joseph Smith's prophecies are false, but you don't list any.
Please take a course in logic and try again.
Most LDS people would strongly disagree that they deny Christ, but you're right about the other issues. My only regret about leaving the LDS church is I didn't do it sooner.
The LDS denial of Christ is very subtle. A group of BYU students were praying to Jesus. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie rebuked them saying that they are to worship the father in Jesus' name, but not him directly. Tell that to the many people in the NT who prayed directly to Jesus including John the Beloved. Apparently they weren't blessed enough to hear McConkie's clarification.
On the false prophecy thing, its sad to see LDS apologists try to defend very testable, specific prophecies that didn't come true. They can't. He was speaking in the name of the Lord, there was no conditional ';if/when'; language, and it didn't come true. Why not study them if you're LDS?
Once you bring in the Book of Abraham embarassment, Smith caught at his own game with Kinderhook, DNA evidence and the B of M, Brigham Young's wild teachings, and you've got a clear picture of who Mr. Smith is and the early leaders he recruited. But you have to admire the skill of the con. Too bad it's so harmful to so many people.
Regarding the fruits of LDS people, my heart goes out to them. They view good works as a cause of salvation, not the result of God working in them. No wonder the depression rate is highest in Utah, young men suicide the highest, and I think ice cream consumption as well. So apparently depressed young men are killing themselves by eating ice cream. Kidding, but the fruits of a ';work your way to heaven'; approach is either arrogance or depression, that there's plenty of evidence for the latter.
To my Christian friends who criticize the LDS gospel, no, your works won't save you, but if you haven't experienced a change of heart since you believed, see no evidence of God working in you, wake up. You've haven't met Jesus. Wake up and see what's going on with your connection with God. If water's not coming out of the hose, it's probably not hooked up to a water source. 1 John speaks broadly and deeply about this.
The Mormons have claimed to be prophets? None of my morman friends have made any such claims.
I'm not a Mormon, but there's a huge hole in your logic:
1. Jesus could be a false prophet as defined in the Old Testament (Tanakh), and he is considered it by Judaism.
2. The Jewish religion could be considered false because of the deviations from the Canaanite faith that it came from.
3. Canaanite religion could be considered false because of the deviations from the Sumerian religion that it came from.
4. Sumerian religion could be considered false because of the deviations from the Indus valley traditions that it came from.
And those people from the Indus valley were definitely lying when they told people to stop worshiping animals from the Animism cults!
You're a former member? Well, I don't know how long you were, and how deeply involved, but you didn't learn anything about our prophets while you in the church. obviously.
What do you think the role of a prophet is--to predict the next lotto numbers? Prophecies, humph!
1) False gods? Who would those be? The only God we worship is Heavenly Father, who sent his son, Jesus.
2) Prophecies? Like. . .uh. . . Predicting the future? Our prophets are not for that purpose--they are instated to lead us.
3) I don't know how you think our prophets have ever contradicted God words. Give an example.
4) Bad fruit--our prophets are good men and have never lead us astray.
5) We speak well of them. You anti-Mormons certainly do not.
6) Our number one precept of our church is that Jesus is the Christ and that he has come in the flesh and will again.
according to limited understanding of the particular words. YES
but even the prophets of old spoke at times and the word of God in prophecy was not completed. but yet those prophets are still cannonized.
one in particular is Jonah. if my memory doesnt fail me.
He was told by God to go to a certain city and declare The destruction. the inhabitants of the city, fasted and prayed in sackloth and ashes and the previous prophecy of God was declared overturned.
let me ask you, was that prophet a false prophet because his prophecy failed.?
thus paul writes: prophecies will fail
Yes.
Theirs is a false church according to the Bible.
YES!! 1 John 2:22. %26lt;')))%26gt;%26lt;
They might be false prophets, but they're pretty good profiteers...5 billion in assets for a charity organization!
Most definitely!
Their ';prophets'; are false, so yeah.
True or False: A polynomial of odd degree which is defined for all (x) can have no absolute minimum..........?
True. As x goes to negative infinity, x raised to any odd power also goes to negative infinity. As x goes to positive infinity, x raised to any odd power also goes to positive infinity. The leading term of any polynomial function eventually dwarfs the other terms, so the extremes of the graph on the left and right are going to go to negative and positive infinity respectively. Therefore, while it may have local maxes and mins in the middle, it won't have any global maxes or mins.True or False: A polynomial of odd degree which is defined for all (x) can have no absolute minimum..........?
True, because the limits of any odd-degree polynomal approach both +infinity and -infinity in two different directions. If the coefficient of x^3 is positive, then:
f(x) -%26gt; +inf when x -%26gt; +inf
f(x) -%26gt; -inf when x -%26gt; -inf
If the coefficient of x^3 is negative, then:
f(x) -%26gt; -inf when x-%26gt; +inf
f(x) -%26gt; +inf when x-%26gt; -infTrue or False: A polynomial of odd degree which is defined for all (x) can have no absolute minimum..........?
My first instinct is to say true, but give me a minute to find a proof.
Check out the website in the source. It looks to be of a beginning to intermediate level and will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about polynomials. The second source is also very good an even more basic.
true.
such a polynomial goes to -INF when x goes to -INF
and to + INF when x goes to INF
For those respondants who said that the limit of such a polynomial as x -%26gt; -infinity is -infinity and the limit as x-%26gt; +infinity is +infinity, you are assuming that the leading coefficient is positive. The last respondant had the right idea, but the same idea carries over to polynomials of odd degree higher than 3. If the polynomial has degree n, then:
Case 1: If the leading term is ax^n with a %26gt;0, then the limit of the function as x-%26gt; + infinity is +infinity, and the limit as x-%26gt;-infinity is -infinity.
Case 2: If the leading term is ax^n with a%26lt;0, then the limit of the function as x-%26gt;+infinity is -infinity, and the limit as x-%26gt;-infinity is +infinity.
In either case, given any y value, one can always find points on the graph with lower y-coordinates by going out sufficiently far out in some direction on the x-axis, so such functions cannot have an absolute minimum.
True, because the limits of any odd-degree polynomal approach both +infinity and -infinity in two different directions. If the coefficient of x^3 is positive, then:
f(x) -%26gt; +inf when x -%26gt; +inf
f(x) -%26gt; -inf when x -%26gt; -inf
If the coefficient of x^3 is negative, then:
f(x) -%26gt; -inf when x-%26gt; +inf
f(x) -%26gt; +inf when x-%26gt; -infTrue or False: A polynomial of odd degree which is defined for all (x) can have no absolute minimum..........?
My first instinct is to say true, but give me a minute to find a proof.
Check out the website in the source. It looks to be of a beginning to intermediate level and will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about polynomials. The second source is also very good an even more basic.
true.
such a polynomial goes to -INF when x goes to -INF
and to + INF when x goes to INF
For those respondants who said that the limit of such a polynomial as x -%26gt; -infinity is -infinity and the limit as x-%26gt; +infinity is +infinity, you are assuming that the leading coefficient is positive. The last respondant had the right idea, but the same idea carries over to polynomials of odd degree higher than 3. If the polynomial has degree n, then:
Case 1: If the leading term is ax^n with a %26gt;0, then the limit of the function as x-%26gt; + infinity is +infinity, and the limit as x-%26gt;-infinity is -infinity.
Case 2: If the leading term is ax^n with a%26lt;0, then the limit of the function as x-%26gt;+infinity is -infinity, and the limit as x-%26gt;-infinity is +infinity.
In either case, given any y value, one can always find points on the graph with lower y-coordinates by going out sufficiently far out in some direction on the x-axis, so such functions cannot have an absolute minimum.
Is indian beauty defined by light heav make up, false eye lashes?
Aishwarya rai is an example i saw her in person few months ago looking ghostly paper white ( obviously not the true complexion of her skin) it looked as if she gave out a desperate attempt to come out looking like Nicole kidman , tons of eye make up heavy on her eyes she could bearly open her eyes letting alone the fact that she was struggling to smile probably due to botox or similar treatment to her cheeks and chin. her lips are becoming too big for her face, in a year or two she could be looking like priscilla presley or a goldfish. her arms were flabby, she was wearing a tight fitting dress and it was obvious to see she and had extra pounds flowing from her love handles though she was wearing some tight clothing inside to hold all that flab!..and the poor woman was in a very discomfort status. for those people who rave on about how beautiful she is, are u blind? to me it was disgusting to look. she obviously has pretty features, but all this drama isnt doing her any favour atIs indian beauty defined by light heav make up, false eye lashes?
it seems you are basically venting and asking for someone to agree...so i agree.
i think indian women have such natural beauty. i find that they dont need any make up and a little eyeliner and lipstick just makes them all the more gorgeous but going heavy on the makeup is ridiculous and unnecessary.Is indian beauty defined by light heav make up, false eye lashes?
Indian beauty cannot be defined , if u want to see real indian beauty dont see the celebrities bcoz they are advertisements of different cosmetic brands , hiding their real look behind these products . Real indian beauty is a any simple girl next door with natural look without any heavy makeup and fake cosmetics .
All celebrities are like that: fake. Indian of otherwise.
it seems you are basically venting and asking for someone to agree...so i agree.
i think indian women have such natural beauty. i find that they dont need any make up and a little eyeliner and lipstick just makes them all the more gorgeous but going heavy on the makeup is ridiculous and unnecessary.Is indian beauty defined by light heav make up, false eye lashes?
Indian beauty cannot be defined , if u want to see real indian beauty dont see the celebrities bcoz they are advertisements of different cosmetic brands , hiding their real look behind these products . Real indian beauty is a any simple girl next door with natural look without any heavy makeup and fake cosmetics .
All celebrities are like that: fake. Indian of otherwise.
True or False? States of nature should be defined so that one and only one will actually occur.?
FalseTrue or False? States of nature should be defined so that one and only one will actually occur.?
why??
what would that accomplish..
nature is not what defines all of life...
think deeper..keep an open mind..backgrounds for myspace
why??
what would that accomplish..
nature is not what defines all of life...
think deeper..keep an open mind..
True or false: Unethical behavior is best defined as anything that is in violation of a prof. code of ethics?
In counseling and psychotherapy practice would is it true that unethical behavior BEST be defined as anything that is in violation of a professional code of ethics? Why or why not?True or false: Unethical behavior is best defined as anything that is in violation of a prof. code of ethics?
Yes! But it is a hard thing to define. While certain nations such as the UK have NHS and teaching practices (if you break them you get struck off). There are varying other bodies for other practices that differ there are many teaching societies etc... all whose ethical codes differ slightly. Also ethics doesn't always mean the same as law. For example, in the Fillipines hacking is not illegal however would still be considered unethical by computer societies and the industry at large.
Yes! But it is a hard thing to define. While certain nations such as the UK have NHS and teaching practices (if you break them you get struck off). There are varying other bodies for other practices that differ there are many teaching societies etc... all whose ethical codes differ slightly. Also ethics doesn't always mean the same as law. For example, in the Fillipines hacking is not illegal however would still be considered unethical by computer societies and the industry at large.
Reality is not defined by what we think it is. True or false? Why?
If I understood what this question meant, I'm sure I'd give you the best answer.
Since I don't know, I'll say true. Nothing is what it seems.Reality is not defined by what we think it is. True or false? Why?
Reality defines itself. What we think it is has no effect on it. Believing that the world is flat does not make it so. If we start calling blue ';red';, it doesn't change its wavelength, its speed, or any of its other properties. We've only changed what we call it.
Reality is not defined by what we think it is. True or false? Why?
My reality is based on my experiences.
My experiences are based on my reality.
My point of reference to what is experienced through my reality is sometimes just the booze talking when I have a good buzz on! I am
The Reality Whisperer!
True, because what is reality? That is the true question we need to ask. In fact what defines reality? Maybe this life isn't even reality.
true. We can't define reality unless we know it. Do we know reality? We know what our reality is.
Reality is defined to a degree by what we think it is. There is no denying that I am a male who lives in Texas. It does not matter what I think of that in the immediate sense. If I decide that it is a terrible thing, unbearable, to live in Texas, reality may change based on what I thought in the form of me moving to Canada. If I decide that going to college is a good thing, I will be more inclined to go. If I think that life is terrible, horrible, I may end my life today, affecting many deeply, while it may be that I was depressed. If I think it is great, I will be cheerful and become the friends of others. It is more accurate to say that what we think is a part of reality. The thoughts of people exist, they determine their actions, and the actions of humans shape the world.
depends on how you define ';defined.';
False. Reality IS defined by what we think it is. Each of our realities is unique to us.
we define what reality is, although matter does exist outside of human consciousness, however it is greatly influenced by how we perceive it, for example a red light, is it really just energy behaving in a certain wavelength. But if your talking about truths, each person's truth is different, I may know that the god exists but you know it doesn't, so it's impossible to define truth, in a philosophical sense.
Since I don't know, I'll say true. Nothing is what it seems.Reality is not defined by what we think it is. True or false? Why?
Reality defines itself. What we think it is has no effect on it. Believing that the world is flat does not make it so. If we start calling blue ';red';, it doesn't change its wavelength, its speed, or any of its other properties. We've only changed what we call it.
Report Abuse
Reality is not defined by what we think it is. True or false? Why?
My reality is based on my experiences.
My experiences are based on my reality.
My point of reference to what is experienced through my reality is sometimes just the booze talking when I have a good buzz on! I am
The Reality Whisperer!
True, because what is reality? That is the true question we need to ask. In fact what defines reality? Maybe this life isn't even reality.
true. We can't define reality unless we know it. Do we know reality? We know what our reality is.
Reality is defined to a degree by what we think it is. There is no denying that I am a male who lives in Texas. It does not matter what I think of that in the immediate sense. If I decide that it is a terrible thing, unbearable, to live in Texas, reality may change based on what I thought in the form of me moving to Canada. If I decide that going to college is a good thing, I will be more inclined to go. If I think that life is terrible, horrible, I may end my life today, affecting many deeply, while it may be that I was depressed. If I think it is great, I will be cheerful and become the friends of others. It is more accurate to say that what we think is a part of reality. The thoughts of people exist, they determine their actions, and the actions of humans shape the world.
depends on how you define ';defined.';
False. Reality IS defined by what we think it is. Each of our realities is unique to us.
we define what reality is, although matter does exist outside of human consciousness, however it is greatly influenced by how we perceive it, for example a red light, is it really just energy behaving in a certain wavelength. But if your talking about truths, each person's truth is different, I may know that the god exists but you know it doesn't, so it's impossible to define truth, in a philosophical sense.
True or False? A MICROCYCLE is USUALLY defined as a full year of training ?
The Microcycle is defined as the weekly and or daily training plan, and basically breaks the Mesocycle into smaller more manageable sections. The Microcycle is comprised of the daily training session. These sessions gradually build in intensity and volume over a specified time.
Quick math question, why's this false ...If f(x)=x^2 and g(x) =sq.root (x+3) then f(g(x)) is defined for all x
I am having difficulty understanding why, could someone please explain it to me?Quick math question, why's this false ...If f(x)=x^2 and g(x) =sq.root (x+3) then f(g(x)) is defined for all x
F(x)= x+3 is definied for all x
But f(g(x)) only is definied when g(x) is definied (by definition) --%26gt;
f(g(x))=x+3 only where x%26gt;=-3
Saludos.
F(x)= x+3 is definied for all x
But f(g(x)) only is definied when g(x) is definied (by definition) --%26gt;
f(g(x))=x+3 only where x%26gt;=-3
Saludos.
In successive approximation the steps are well defined and apply to all horses-true/false
huh???In successive approximation the steps are well defined and apply to all horses-true/false
What steps? I'm LOST! Try rewording this question so it makes sense.
Thanks Shannon, I was lost there and couldn't figure out what poster was asking...Another HOWRSE question huh?
:::Crawls out of the lost and confused box:::In successive approximation the steps are well defined and apply to all horses-true/false
It would help if you wrote out the entire question from Howrse. You only put half of it. XD You aren't really going to get an answer because Howrse is supposed to be a learning game (aka get your own answers).
Is this from Horwse
What steps? I'm LOST! Try rewording this question so it makes sense.
Thanks Shannon, I was lost there and couldn't figure out what poster was asking...Another HOWRSE question huh?
:::Crawls out of the lost and confused box:::In successive approximation the steps are well defined and apply to all horses-true/false
It would help if you wrote out the entire question from Howrse. You only put half of it. XD You aren't really going to get an answer because Howrse is supposed to be a learning game (aka get your own answers).
Is this from Horwse
-The combining form encephal/o is defined as brain. True or False?
encephalo- means brain. You are correct, the answer is True.backgrounds for myspace
True or False: If a function is not defined at x=5, then the function is not continous at x=5.?
true or False: If a function is not defined at x=5, then the function is not continous at x=5.True or False: If a function is not defined at x=5, then the function is not continous at x=5.?
True.True or False: If a function is not defined at x=5, then the function is not continous at x=5.?
Yes, that's TRUE. The function is good and continuous for all real values of x Except ';5'; which is missing from f(x)'s domain.
If said function is not defined at x=5, then it is not continuous over any set including this line. for example, this function is not continuous over the real numbers. This is a removable discontinuity, and can be fixed by redefining the function for that point. So true
True.True or False: If a function is not defined at x=5, then the function is not continous at x=5.?
Yes, that's TRUE. The function is good and continuous for all real values of x Except ';5'; which is missing from f(x)'s domain.
If said function is not defined at x=5, then it is not continuous over any set including this line. for example, this function is not continuous over the real numbers. This is a removable discontinuity, and can be fixed by redefining the function for that point. So true
True or False?....The more defined your body is...the more ticklish you are?
Is this actually true.....?True or False?....The more defined your body is...the more ticklish you are?
you will need some scientific theory and process to determine this...other wise its a possible theoryTrue or False?....The more defined your body is...the more ticklish you are?
nope...just think about it. if someone is super duper fatty there is more skin and more tickle zone present!!!
you will need some scientific theory and process to determine this...other wise its a possible theoryTrue or False?....The more defined your body is...the more ticklish you are?
nope...just think about it. if someone is super duper fatty there is more skin and more tickle zone present!!!
Defining functions, true or false..?
----------------------------------------鈥?br>
Answer true of false to the following questions:
1. It is possible to uniquely define a quadratic function given 4 distinct points.
2. It is possible to uniquely define a constant function given 4 distinct points.
3. It is possible to uniquely define a quartic function given 4 distinct points.
4. It is possible to uniquely define a cubic function given 4 distinct points.
5. It is possible to uniquely define a quintic function given 4 distinct points.Defining functions, true or false..?
Y = AX^2 +BX +C; it takes 3 points to uniquely define a quadratic; 4 points to uniquely define a cubic; etc.
1. T
2. T
3. F
4. T
5. FDefining functions, true or false..?
3. It is possible to uniquely define a quartic function given 4 distinct points - True
Others are false.
Answer true of false to the following questions:
1. It is possible to uniquely define a quadratic function given 4 distinct points.
2. It is possible to uniquely define a constant function given 4 distinct points.
3. It is possible to uniquely define a quartic function given 4 distinct points.
4. It is possible to uniquely define a cubic function given 4 distinct points.
5. It is possible to uniquely define a quintic function given 4 distinct points.Defining functions, true or false..?
Y = AX^2 +BX +C; it takes 3 points to uniquely define a quadratic; 4 points to uniquely define a cubic; etc.
1. T
2. T
3. F
4. T
5. FDefining functions, true or false..?
3. It is possible to uniquely define a quartic function given 4 distinct points - True
Others are false.
Which law of logic is defined as ';if a conditional is true and its consequent is false, then its antcecedent?
which law of logic is defined as ';if a conditional is true and its consequent is false, then its antcecedent is false';
1) Law of Syllogism (Chain Rule)
2) Law of COnjunct6ion (Law of Conjunctive Addition)
3) Law of Disjunctive Addition
4) Law of Modus TollensWhich law of logic is defined as ';if a conditional is true and its consequent is false, then its antcecedent?
I'll write it logically.
1) A -%26gt; B
2) ~B
// ~A
The law of logic is modus tollens.
I'm not sure what #1 is, but I know what the others are.
2) Law of Conjunctive Addition goes as follows:
1. A
2. B
// A * B
Law of Disjunctive Addition.
1. A.
// A v B
(essentially, once you know that something is true, it follows that that something ORed with someone else, whether it is true or false, is true).
1) Law of Syllogism (Chain Rule)
2) Law of COnjunct6ion (Law of Conjunctive Addition)
3) Law of Disjunctive Addition
4) Law of Modus TollensWhich law of logic is defined as ';if a conditional is true and its consequent is false, then its antcecedent?
I'll write it logically.
1) A -%26gt; B
2) ~B
// ~A
The law of logic is modus tollens.
I'm not sure what #1 is, but I know what the others are.
2) Law of Conjunctive Addition goes as follows:
1. A
2. B
// A * B
Law of Disjunctive Addition.
1. A.
// A v B
(essentially, once you know that something is true, it follows that that something ORed with someone else, whether it is true or false, is true).
True or False: Bohr's idea of electrons moving around the nucleus in well-defined circular orbits successfully?
True or False: Bohr's idea of electrons moving around the nucleus in well-defined circular orbits successfully accounts for the observed line spectra of all atoms.True or False: Bohr's idea of electrons moving around the nucleus in well-defined circular orbits successfully?
False, it only works for the spectrum of the Hydrogen.True or False: Bohr's idea of electrons moving around the nucleus in well-defined circular orbits successfully?
False
False, it only works for the spectrum of the Hydrogen.True or False: Bohr's idea of electrons moving around the nucleus in well-defined circular orbits successfully?
False
How do you defined the difference between a false witch-hunt and a TRUE witchhunt? according to the bible!?
or any holy book of scripture,!
especially if the church who interprets the scriptures THEY themselves are guilty of witchcrafts and priestcrafts or secret combinations?How do you defined the difference between a false witch-hunt and a TRUE witchhunt? according to the bible!?
Witchhunts where Christians Killing Christians for what they owned, controling lives, the Christians Killed People for thier beliefs, if you didn't follow thier way you Died!
They Murdered thier own they were not Witches at all they where accused as witches for an excuse to murder and take then re-wrote it to make an excuse for thier insanities!
Jesus was a witch, why do you think he was killed!How do you defined the difference between a false witch-hunt and a TRUE witchhunt? according to the bible!?
You are out in La la land. The Holy Scripture doesn't tell anyone to go on a witch hunt. That is foolish. It tells us to lift up the Name of Jesus Christ so that all mankind will receive Him and be saved. Jesus Christ is the one to hunt not the witch.
Either or they are both wrong as it implies to force a desired will upon others. Jesus Christ came down for us to show compassion and the will of GOD through peaceful means. Not means to kill others that do not believe as we do. We are to share the news, not scare it into non believers.
define your idea of ''holy'' and I might reply to such an inane proposition.
er your weird, not everyone takes the bible literally. : P
nice attempt. I'd only give is a 6/10. IOW, LURK MOAR.
whoever believe in witches is childishbackgrounds for myspace
especially if the church who interprets the scriptures THEY themselves are guilty of witchcrafts and priestcrafts or secret combinations?How do you defined the difference between a false witch-hunt and a TRUE witchhunt? according to the bible!?
Witchhunts where Christians Killing Christians for what they owned, controling lives, the Christians Killed People for thier beliefs, if you didn't follow thier way you Died!
They Murdered thier own they were not Witches at all they where accused as witches for an excuse to murder and take then re-wrote it to make an excuse for thier insanities!
Jesus was a witch, why do you think he was killed!How do you defined the difference between a false witch-hunt and a TRUE witchhunt? according to the bible!?
You are out in La la land. The Holy Scripture doesn't tell anyone to go on a witch hunt. That is foolish. It tells us to lift up the Name of Jesus Christ so that all mankind will receive Him and be saved. Jesus Christ is the one to hunt not the witch.
Either or they are both wrong as it implies to force a desired will upon others. Jesus Christ came down for us to show compassion and the will of GOD through peaceful means. Not means to kill others that do not believe as we do. We are to share the news, not scare it into non believers.
define your idea of ''holy'' and I might reply to such an inane proposition.
er your weird, not everyone takes the bible literally. : P
nice attempt. I'd only give is a 6/10. IOW, LURK MOAR.
whoever believe in witches is childish
True or false momentum is defined as an objects mass times its velocity?
true or false
2.impulse is defined as the force exerted on an object times the time it lasts
3.if the net external force acting on a system is zero then the total momentum of the system is zero
4.when two objects collide and completely bounce apart with no lasting deformation or generation of heat the collision is said to be elastic
5.when two objects collide and completely stick together the collision is said to be inelastic
6.impulses are normally smaller when bouncing takes place
7.perfectly elastic collisions between large objects are uncommon in the everyday world
8.when a baseball player follow through when hitting the ball the contact time with the ball is longer
9.automobile dashboards that are padded lengthen the ttime of impact in case of a collision
10. if a net force acts on a system the systems momentum will change
11. momentum is scalar quantityTrue or false momentum is defined as an objects mass times its velocity?
1.false
2.false
3.true
4.false
5.false
6.false
7.false
8.true
9.false
10.false
11.false
2.impulse is defined as the force exerted on an object times the time it lasts
3.if the net external force acting on a system is zero then the total momentum of the system is zero
4.when two objects collide and completely bounce apart with no lasting deformation or generation of heat the collision is said to be elastic
5.when two objects collide and completely stick together the collision is said to be inelastic
6.impulses are normally smaller when bouncing takes place
7.perfectly elastic collisions between large objects are uncommon in the everyday world
8.when a baseball player follow through when hitting the ball the contact time with the ball is longer
9.automobile dashboards that are padded lengthen the ttime of impact in case of a collision
10. if a net force acts on a system the systems momentum will change
11. momentum is scalar quantityTrue or false momentum is defined as an objects mass times its velocity?
1.false
2.false
3.true
4.false
5.false
6.false
7.false
8.true
9.false
10.false
11.false
A direct object is defined as a noun or pronoun that receives the action of the verb. True or False?
True.A direct object is defined as a noun or pronoun that receives the action of the verb. True or False?
Hi,
Yes, absolutely.
Take care,
Nancala :)
http://www.ncslearnalanguageresources.co鈥?/a>A direct object is defined as a noun or pronoun that receives the action of the verb. True or False?
True.
Hi,
Yes, absolutely.
Take care,
Nancala :)
http://www.ncslearnalanguageresources.co鈥?/a>A direct object is defined as a noun or pronoun that receives the action of the verb. True or False?
True.
How many people think that islam is a false religion as defined in the bible?
Islam is not consistent with orthodox Christianity. The most fundamental difference is that Christians accept Christ as God; Muslims accept Him as a prophet second to Muhammed. Therefore, Christians who accept NT teaching must reject Islam.
It's important to remember that just because someone does not accept another's beliefs as valid, that doesn't mean rejection or intolerance of that other person.How many people think that islam is a false religion as defined in the bible?
nobody ,but you !How many people think that islam is a false religion as defined in the bible?
All religions are false.
READ QURAN and then when u get information about ISLAM compare its laws and other things with other religion u will get the answer ISLAM is the BEST RELIGION
peace
I can't tell you if it is a false religion; however, I believe that it is a gutter religion! Does that answer your question?
Certainly not me. That's the trouble with the Bible; a collection of folk tales and beliefs that some people accept as Absolute Truth.
Er. The Bible is not a dictionary.
All religion are god given true the moment they came to earth except for the books you're reading now.
just wandering, what has become of a 300 years old book and the books we're all reading.it's a sad thing a messenger is not sent at this moment.At this moment of time we all think that we are the righteous so the fighting is all about.just like the scientists until a new discovery is found.so don't make assumptions cause we don't really know what we think we knew
The bible has a funny way of defining things. In MANY places, it contradicts either itself, or it either contradicts the scientific proofs. Whereas, in the Quran, I have not yet found a single verse contradicting itself, or contradicting science yet. So if I had to choose a reliegion, I think I'd rather choose Islam. Islam isn't voilent just becuase Osama bin laden and a people of insane people just take verses out of context and use it to justify themselves. That's stupid.
The terrorist acts attributed to Muslim suspects, should not be attributed to Islam or the Muslims in general but to individual human weaknesses. Such human failings occur among all religious and ethnic groups. Recorded history has not witnessed an incident similar to the 鈥楬olocaust鈥? However, one is not expected to and should not attribute the holocaust to Christianity or to Christians in general.
Your anchor of definitions is funny.
The Bible says all other religions are false and so it probably does the Coran , thus every christian with a bit of common sense believes that other people should find out the Bible's truth
and realise that their old religion was wrong, likewise islamists, hinduists, buddhist, shintoists, to recall some of the common known religions, feel the same about their beliefs. Now what was the point again , because some people would really react in a negative way to your question ?
i think its all b.s., esp. christianity (was raised christian)
Err, I think the Bible is supposed to have been written before the Koran, so how could it directly refer to Islam???
your ignorance is amazing!
you read that ! OK %26gt; but you must read quran to know about Islam and Christianity .I promise that you will surprised
Islam is a great religion
Logical proof : It has the largest human following, and still growing rapidly.
as for the holy Bible, it was written before the advent of Islam.
Good thinking
What an ignorant question!
Islam is a great religion.
(I was raised as a Christian, and I respect other religions.)
It's important to remember that just because someone does not accept another's beliefs as valid, that doesn't mean rejection or intolerance of that other person.How many people think that islam is a false religion as defined in the bible?
nobody ,but you !How many people think that islam is a false religion as defined in the bible?
All religions are false.
READ QURAN and then when u get information about ISLAM compare its laws and other things with other religion u will get the answer ISLAM is the BEST RELIGION
peace
I can't tell you if it is a false religion; however, I believe that it is a gutter religion! Does that answer your question?
Certainly not me. That's the trouble with the Bible; a collection of folk tales and beliefs that some people accept as Absolute Truth.
Er. The Bible is not a dictionary.
All religion are god given true the moment they came to earth except for the books you're reading now.
just wandering, what has become of a 300 years old book and the books we're all reading.it's a sad thing a messenger is not sent at this moment.At this moment of time we all think that we are the righteous so the fighting is all about.just like the scientists until a new discovery is found.so don't make assumptions cause we don't really know what we think we knew
The bible has a funny way of defining things. In MANY places, it contradicts either itself, or it either contradicts the scientific proofs. Whereas, in the Quran, I have not yet found a single verse contradicting itself, or contradicting science yet. So if I had to choose a reliegion, I think I'd rather choose Islam. Islam isn't voilent just becuase Osama bin laden and a people of insane people just take verses out of context and use it to justify themselves. That's stupid.
The terrorist acts attributed to Muslim suspects, should not be attributed to Islam or the Muslims in general but to individual human weaknesses. Such human failings occur among all religious and ethnic groups. Recorded history has not witnessed an incident similar to the 鈥楬olocaust鈥? However, one is not expected to and should not attribute the holocaust to Christianity or to Christians in general.
Your anchor of definitions is funny.
The Bible says all other religions are false and so it probably does the Coran , thus every christian with a bit of common sense believes that other people should find out the Bible's truth
and realise that their old religion was wrong, likewise islamists, hinduists, buddhist, shintoists, to recall some of the common known religions, feel the same about their beliefs. Now what was the point again , because some people would really react in a negative way to your question ?
i think its all b.s., esp. christianity (was raised christian)
Err, I think the Bible is supposed to have been written before the Koran, so how could it directly refer to Islam???
your ignorance is amazing!
you read that ! OK %26gt; but you must read quran to know about Islam and Christianity .I promise that you will surprised
Islam is a great religion
Logical proof : It has the largest human following, and still growing rapidly.
as for the holy Bible, it was written before the advent of Islam.
Good thinking
What an ignorant question!
Islam is a great religion.
(I was raised as a Christian, and I respect other religions.)
True/False: Two-dimensional art is defined as having height and breath?
True, if you meant to type ';breadth'; (3 dimensional art also has depth).
Otherwise, false. No art has breath.
Otherwise, false. No art has breath.
An exponential function f(x)= a the power of x is not defined when a<0 True or false?
It is a mathematics question.An exponential function f(x)= a the power of x is not defined when a%26lt;0 True or false?
True.
True.
True or false A recessive allele is defined as any allele that results in a deleterious or negative phenotype?
false.
a recessive allele is one that is masked by the presence of the dominant allele. So AA and Aa would express the dominant phenotype while only aa would be the recessive phenotype. True or false A recessive allele is defined as any allele that results in a deleterious or negative phenotype?
Falsebackgrounds for myspace
a recessive allele is one that is masked by the presence of the dominant allele. So AA and Aa would express the dominant phenotype while only aa would be the recessive phenotype. True or false A recessive allele is defined as any allele that results in a deleterious or negative phenotype?
False
True or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
True or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes that can be observed from a given population?True or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
Defining as the probability distribution is a terrific ideaTrue or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
True
Defining as the probability distribution is a terrific ideaTrue or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
True
True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
It seems that there are a lot of people that aren't aware of where their religious beliefs come from, so to those people I ask this question, which came first, the Catholic or the bible?True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
The Catholic of course.True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
The Catholic church undoubtedly created the Bible out of the numerous religious texts that were around at the time, discarding those that were ';embarassing'; or ';inconvenient';.
The Canon has changed a number of times. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the New Testament as we now know it. He was definitely a Catholic.
This is partially true. With the definition of Christian being Christ like, most Christians fall short. Although you must frame them in the right context. They are normal people who have been adopted into a different family. Most all of them will take years to acclimate and understand what that new family is all about. All of them will still mack dumb mistakes and say stupid things. Yet the father who adopted them is perfect. It is not the adopted who is perfect but the adopter. So to understand the adopted you must study the father of the family which is God.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.
It was only around the second century that the catholic clergy class began to appear.
In the early second century C.E., Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, wrote about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons.
The last book of the Bible ';Revelation'; was written by 96 CE.
Thus the Catholics church was not involved in writing the Bible.
Anyone that has honestly studied history and the evolution of religious beliefs knows that it was the Roman backed ';Universal'; or in Latin ';Catholic'; Christian Church that followed the orders of the Emperor and produced a set of scriptures that all churches would agree were ';authentic'; even if they had to alter, modify, edit, twist, change, and rewrite them to do it.
The earliest full canon of the Bible was canonized by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. That was in AD 367. The Church (which I, as Orthodox, would consider the Orthodox Church and the Catholics would consider the Catholic Church) began at Pentecost, which was roughly AD 33.
The Church wrote the Bible.
+God Bless
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner
supposedly the congregation of people that decided what to include or what to exclude from the bible 100+ years after Jesus was crucified, were guided by the spirit of God in writing the bible. But historically their motivation was purely political. As that's the point when, Mary Magdalene was stripped from follower of Jesus(and most likely his wife), and became a prostitute.
The Catholic because the Church compiled all the gospels and books into the bible that we all know and love today. Even all the Protestants bibles came from Catholics minus the 7 books that they took out.
true!
I know what you mean, you don't have to be Catholic or an ex-Catholic to know facts if you're really willing to educate yourself about them.
Here's another:
All Catholics are Christians.
Not all Christians are Catholic.
True.
Peace!
Your right
The Church
If you want the truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth as determined by historical evidence, the Bible that is the ';source of authority'; for Protestants was edicted, revised, doctored, distorted and finally compiled by the Church of Rome. It was the Church of Rome and her elders that determined what books got in the canon and which did not.
The Bible is itself a doctorced edited work of pure propaganda whose documents are virtually all forgeries [use of the name of a phony author] and has no more relevance to reality than Barney the Dinosaur. The Church Fathers ';created'; a religion about a man named Jesus of Nazareth but which is NOT in actuality the religion OF the man himself which was Judaism.
If you want to be like Jesus, follow the path Jesus followed, then you'd be a Jew. What you have in Christianity is an invented dogma, a fictitious history that basically buried the real Jesus in a deluge of myth and outright lies, which was created to keep the masses of people in ignorance and give to the Church the power it stole from the people and from God.
After initial persecutions by pagan Rome, the Christians through the logical system of converting kings and emperors who then can force the entire population to accept their faith, got Constantine converted. In half no-time, the small-time persecutions of Christians for political reasons came to an end. Now the Church backed by the might of Imperial Rome banned paganism and it was at this time over 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus of Nazareth that an ';official'; religion was invented with ';official'; texts and an ';official'; policy and the Coliseum now began to flow with the blood of heretics and criminals who had commited the multitude of new crimes that now got the death penalty [like being homosexual] that in pagan Rome were punished mildly or not at all.
Christianity was on scene before that heresy called catholicsm. Catholic priests have twisted scripture so badly that most of the catholic church are lost, and only members or a social organization.
The Catholic of course.True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
The Catholic church undoubtedly created the Bible out of the numerous religious texts that were around at the time, discarding those that were ';embarassing'; or ';inconvenient';.
The Canon has changed a number of times. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the New Testament as we now know it. He was definitely a Catholic.
This is partially true. With the definition of Christian being Christ like, most Christians fall short. Although you must frame them in the right context. They are normal people who have been adopted into a different family. Most all of them will take years to acclimate and understand what that new family is all about. All of them will still mack dumb mistakes and say stupid things. Yet the father who adopted them is perfect. It is not the adopted who is perfect but the adopter. So to understand the adopted you must study the father of the family which is God.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.
It was only around the second century that the catholic clergy class began to appear.
In the early second century C.E., Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, wrote about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons.
The last book of the Bible ';Revelation'; was written by 96 CE.
Thus the Catholics church was not involved in writing the Bible.
Anyone that has honestly studied history and the evolution of religious beliefs knows that it was the Roman backed ';Universal'; or in Latin ';Catholic'; Christian Church that followed the orders of the Emperor and produced a set of scriptures that all churches would agree were ';authentic'; even if they had to alter, modify, edit, twist, change, and rewrite them to do it.
The earliest full canon of the Bible was canonized by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. That was in AD 367. The Church (which I, as Orthodox, would consider the Orthodox Church and the Catholics would consider the Catholic Church) began at Pentecost, which was roughly AD 33.
The Church wrote the Bible.
+God Bless
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner
supposedly the congregation of people that decided what to include or what to exclude from the bible 100+ years after Jesus was crucified, were guided by the spirit of God in writing the bible. But historically their motivation was purely political. As that's the point when, Mary Magdalene was stripped from follower of Jesus(and most likely his wife), and became a prostitute.
The Catholic because the Church compiled all the gospels and books into the bible that we all know and love today. Even all the Protestants bibles came from Catholics minus the 7 books that they took out.
true!
I know what you mean, you don't have to be Catholic or an ex-Catholic to know facts if you're really willing to educate yourself about them.
Here's another:
All Catholics are Christians.
Not all Christians are Catholic.
True.
Peace!
Your right
The Church
If you want the truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth as determined by historical evidence, the Bible that is the ';source of authority'; for Protestants was edicted, revised, doctored, distorted and finally compiled by the Church of Rome. It was the Church of Rome and her elders that determined what books got in the canon and which did not.
The Bible is itself a doctorced edited work of pure propaganda whose documents are virtually all forgeries [use of the name of a phony author] and has no more relevance to reality than Barney the Dinosaur. The Church Fathers ';created'; a religion about a man named Jesus of Nazareth but which is NOT in actuality the religion OF the man himself which was Judaism.
If you want to be like Jesus, follow the path Jesus followed, then you'd be a Jew. What you have in Christianity is an invented dogma, a fictitious history that basically buried the real Jesus in a deluge of myth and outright lies, which was created to keep the masses of people in ignorance and give to the Church the power it stole from the people and from God.
After initial persecutions by pagan Rome, the Christians through the logical system of converting kings and emperors who then can force the entire population to accept their faith, got Constantine converted. In half no-time, the small-time persecutions of Christians for political reasons came to an end. Now the Church backed by the might of Imperial Rome banned paganism and it was at this time over 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus of Nazareth that an ';official'; religion was invented with ';official'; texts and an ';official'; policy and the Coliseum now began to flow with the blood of heretics and criminals who had commited the multitude of new crimes that now got the death penalty [like being homosexual] that in pagan Rome were punished mildly or not at all.
Christianity was on scene before that heresy called catholicsm. Catholic priests have twisted scripture so badly that most of the catholic church are lost, and only members or a social organization.
True or False: The slope of a line through the origin is always defined. If false, restate.?
false. x = 0 is a vertical line which is undefined.
The slope of any non-vertical line through the origin is always defined.
The slope of any non-vertical line through the origin is always defined.
An exponential function f(x)= a the power of x is not defined when a<0 True or false?
It is a mathematics question.An exponential function f(x)= a the power of x is not defined when a%26lt;0 True or false?
True.
True.
True or false A recessive allele is defined as any allele that results in a deleterious or negative phenotype?
false.
a recessive allele is one that is masked by the presence of the dominant allele. So AA and Aa would express the dominant phenotype while only aa would be the recessive phenotype. True or false A recessive allele is defined as any allele that results in a deleterious or negative phenotype?
False
a recessive allele is one that is masked by the presence of the dominant allele. So AA and Aa would express the dominant phenotype while only aa would be the recessive phenotype. True or false A recessive allele is defined as any allele that results in a deleterious or negative phenotype?
False
True or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
True or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes that can be observed from a given population?True or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
Defining as the probability distribution is a terrific ideaTrue or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
Truebackgrounds for myspace
Defining as the probability distribution is a terrific ideaTrue or False a sampling distribution is defined as the probability distribution of possible sample sizes ....?
True
True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
It seems that there are a lot of people that aren't aware of where their religious beliefs come from, so to those people I ask this question, which came first, the Catholic or the bible?True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
The Catholic of course.True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
The Catholic church undoubtedly created the Bible out of the numerous religious texts that were around at the time, discarding those that were ';embarassing'; or ';inconvenient';.
The Canon has changed a number of times. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the New Testament as we now know it. He was definitely a Catholic.
This is partially true. With the definition of Christian being Christ like, most Christians fall short. Although you must frame them in the right context. They are normal people who have been adopted into a different family. Most all of them will take years to acclimate and understand what that new family is all about. All of them will still mack dumb mistakes and say stupid things. Yet the father who adopted them is perfect. It is not the adopted who is perfect but the adopter. So to understand the adopted you must study the father of the family which is God.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.
It was only around the second century that the catholic clergy class began to appear.
In the early second century C.E., Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, wrote about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons.
The last book of the Bible ';Revelation'; was written by 96 CE.
Thus the Catholics church was not involved in writing the Bible.
Anyone that has honestly studied history and the evolution of religious beliefs knows that it was the Roman backed ';Universal'; or in Latin ';Catholic'; Christian Church that followed the orders of the Emperor and produced a set of scriptures that all churches would agree were ';authentic'; even if they had to alter, modify, edit, twist, change, and rewrite them to do it.
The earliest full canon of the Bible was canonized by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. That was in AD 367. The Church (which I, as Orthodox, would consider the Orthodox Church and the Catholics would consider the Catholic Church) began at Pentecost, which was roughly AD 33.
The Church wrote the Bible.
+God Bless
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner
supposedly the congregation of people that decided what to include or what to exclude from the bible 100+ years after Jesus was crucified, were guided by the spirit of God in writing the bible. But historically their motivation was purely political. As that's the point when, Mary Magdalene was stripped from follower of Jesus(and most likely his wife), and became a prostitute.
The Catholic because the Church compiled all the gospels and books into the bible that we all know and love today. Even all the Protestants bibles came from Catholics minus the 7 books that they took out.
true!
I know what you mean, you don't have to be Catholic or an ex-Catholic to know facts if you're really willing to educate yourself about them.
Here's another:
All Catholics are Christians.
Not all Christians are Catholic.
True.
Peace!
Your right
The Church
If you want the truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth as determined by historical evidence, the Bible that is the ';source of authority'; for Protestants was edicted, revised, doctored, distorted and finally compiled by the Church of Rome. It was the Church of Rome and her elders that determined what books got in the canon and which did not.
The Bible is itself a doctorced edited work of pure propaganda whose documents are virtually all forgeries [use of the name of a phony author] and has no more relevance to reality than Barney the Dinosaur. The Church Fathers ';created'; a religion about a man named Jesus of Nazareth but which is NOT in actuality the religion OF the man himself which was Judaism.
If you want to be like Jesus, follow the path Jesus followed, then you'd be a Jew. What you have in Christianity is an invented dogma, a fictitious history that basically buried the real Jesus in a deluge of myth and outright lies, which was created to keep the masses of people in ignorance and give to the Church the power it stole from the people and from God.
After initial persecutions by pagan Rome, the Christians through the logical system of converting kings and emperors who then can force the entire population to accept their faith, got Constantine converted. In half no-time, the small-time persecutions of Christians for political reasons came to an end. Now the Church backed by the might of Imperial Rome banned paganism and it was at this time over 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus of Nazareth that an ';official'; religion was invented with ';official'; texts and an ';official'; policy and the Coliseum now began to flow with the blood of heretics and criminals who had commited the multitude of new crimes that now got the death penalty [like being homosexual] that in pagan Rome were punished mildly or not at all.
Christianity was on scene before that heresy called catholicsm. Catholic priests have twisted scripture so badly that most of the catholic church are lost, and only members or a social organization.
The Catholic of course.True or false: Catholics aren't defined by the bible, the bible was defined by Catholics?
The Catholic church undoubtedly created the Bible out of the numerous religious texts that were around at the time, discarding those that were ';embarassing'; or ';inconvenient';.
The Canon has changed a number of times. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the New Testament as we now know it. He was definitely a Catholic.
This is partially true. With the definition of Christian being Christ like, most Christians fall short. Although you must frame them in the right context. They are normal people who have been adopted into a different family. Most all of them will take years to acclimate and understand what that new family is all about. All of them will still mack dumb mistakes and say stupid things. Yet the father who adopted them is perfect. It is not the adopted who is perfect but the adopter. So to understand the adopted you must study the father of the family which is God.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.
It was only around the second century that the catholic clergy class began to appear.
In the early second century C.E., Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, wrote about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons.
The last book of the Bible ';Revelation'; was written by 96 CE.
Thus the Catholics church was not involved in writing the Bible.
Anyone that has honestly studied history and the evolution of religious beliefs knows that it was the Roman backed ';Universal'; or in Latin ';Catholic'; Christian Church that followed the orders of the Emperor and produced a set of scriptures that all churches would agree were ';authentic'; even if they had to alter, modify, edit, twist, change, and rewrite them to do it.
The earliest full canon of the Bible was canonized by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. That was in AD 367. The Church (which I, as Orthodox, would consider the Orthodox Church and the Catholics would consider the Catholic Church) began at Pentecost, which was roughly AD 33.
The Church wrote the Bible.
+God Bless
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner
supposedly the congregation of people that decided what to include or what to exclude from the bible 100+ years after Jesus was crucified, were guided by the spirit of God in writing the bible. But historically their motivation was purely political. As that's the point when, Mary Magdalene was stripped from follower of Jesus(and most likely his wife), and became a prostitute.
The Catholic because the Church compiled all the gospels and books into the bible that we all know and love today. Even all the Protestants bibles came from Catholics minus the 7 books that they took out.
true!
I know what you mean, you don't have to be Catholic or an ex-Catholic to know facts if you're really willing to educate yourself about them.
Here's another:
All Catholics are Christians.
Not all Christians are Catholic.
True.
Peace!
Your right
The Church
If you want the truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth as determined by historical evidence, the Bible that is the ';source of authority'; for Protestants was edicted, revised, doctored, distorted and finally compiled by the Church of Rome. It was the Church of Rome and her elders that determined what books got in the canon and which did not.
The Bible is itself a doctorced edited work of pure propaganda whose documents are virtually all forgeries [use of the name of a phony author] and has no more relevance to reality than Barney the Dinosaur. The Church Fathers ';created'; a religion about a man named Jesus of Nazareth but which is NOT in actuality the religion OF the man himself which was Judaism.
If you want to be like Jesus, follow the path Jesus followed, then you'd be a Jew. What you have in Christianity is an invented dogma, a fictitious history that basically buried the real Jesus in a deluge of myth and outright lies, which was created to keep the masses of people in ignorance and give to the Church the power it stole from the people and from God.
After initial persecutions by pagan Rome, the Christians through the logical system of converting kings and emperors who then can force the entire population to accept their faith, got Constantine converted. In half no-time, the small-time persecutions of Christians for political reasons came to an end. Now the Church backed by the might of Imperial Rome banned paganism and it was at this time over 300 years AFTER the death of Jesus of Nazareth that an ';official'; religion was invented with ';official'; texts and an ';official'; policy and the Coliseum now began to flow with the blood of heretics and criminals who had commited the multitude of new crimes that now got the death penalty [like being homosexual] that in pagan Rome were punished mildly or not at all.
Christianity was on scene before that heresy called catholicsm. Catholic priests have twisted scripture so badly that most of the catholic church are lost, and only members or a social organization.
True or False: Standard conditions when working with gases are defined as 0潞 C and 101.3 kPa?
Thanks for the help!True or False: Standard conditions when working with gases are defined as 0潞 C and 101.3 kPa?
False standard conditions for working with gases are 0 c or -273 C which is also absolute zero. hope that helped
False standard conditions for working with gases are 0 c or -273 C which is also absolute zero. hope that helped
Who is a true or false prophet and what does he or she do? How does the Bible define a prophet?
A prophet is any person who serves as God's spokesman to the people. His/Her ';job'; can be put into two categories:
* Preaching -- a preaching prophet encourages, comforts, or reproves the people.
* Foretelling -- a foretelling prophet gives the people the word of God concerning the future
Source: www.biblebell.org/proph/prophecy1.html
Do you agree with this definition of the prophet of the Bible? I'm particularly interested in the opinion of Jehovah Witnesses since I'm studying their religion at the moment.
If you don't agree? Then, I'd like to know what it is that you would like to change in that definition %26amp; why?
What I come to conclude after reading this is that a ';false prophet'; doesn't necessarily need to be guided by the devil or being ill-willed when saying something that later turns out to be proven wrong. Nevertheless, if what he says in his role as the ';Preacher'; shows to be wrong he is then obviously not chosen by God and therefore not lead by him either.Who is a true or false prophet and what does he or she do? How does the Bible define a prophet?
I am muslim and I would like to add that a Prophet is chosen by God and a person by his own effort can't become Prophet.
A Prophet is infallible. Prophet may show some miracle by God's order.
Anybody who claim to be prophet after Prophet Mohammed PBUH is a false prophet.Who is a true or false prophet and what does he or she do? How does the Bible define a prophet?
I cant recall the bible definining prophet anywhere. I read it 4 times. Your are misleading people.
The bible is also not a dictionary, and this is why.
Biblically a prophet is someone who tells God's message to others.
So if you pick up the Bible and read it out loud to someone, you are a prophet.
Are you an inspired prophet? NO.
But you are fulfilling the basic meaning of the word prophet.
The last inspired prophet was the apostle John.
In ancient Israel a key to understanding a false 'inspired' prophey was two fold.
1) What he said, did it come true?
2) What he was saying was it leading people away from Jehovah and his principles.
Example: In the days of Jeremiah the false prophets were ineffect stating that Jehovah was not mad at them, that they were NOT doing anything wrong, and that Jehovah was not going to destroy Jerusalem.
Now let's fast forward to today:
We have false doctrine and telling people what is bad is good, and what is good is bad.
(Women ministers and gay ministers; Sex before marriage is okay. Organizations teaching these things are teaching falsehood.)
(Teaching pagan philosophy and not bible teaching is also wrong:
Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”
Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”
In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”
That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” )
But what about the one who finds out what he understood was wrong?
The apostles thought Jesus was setting up his kingdom, right after his death.
Christian Jews thought you still had to follow the Law and be circumised.
These faithful men accepted the change and went on serving God acceptably.
The apostle Peter had to be corrected because he was teaching partiality, yet he didn't stop being an apostle.
Meek and humble are the qualities God looks for in people.
Meek means teachable, humble means willing to put God and others ahead of self.
Are we willing to accept what the inspired Word of God says, or will we stick to the error and continue to preach it.
Give me an organization that admits it's mistakes over one that clings to tradition.
Give me an organization that bases all it's teachings on the bible, and not of pagan philosophy.
A humble and meek person or organization will accept the disciple God gives and correct their teachings.
This doesn't make them false, just human.
.
YOU CAN ONLY TELL A TRUE PROPHET OF GOD IN THE NUDE!!!
A LOT OF PROPHETS OF GOD WERE PREACHING AROUND NAKED!
1 Samuel 19 24 He* (*King Saul) STRIPPED OFF HIS ROBES and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. HE LAY THAT WAY ALL THAT DAY AND NIGHT. This is why people say, ';Is Saul also among the prophets?';* (*at that time, all the prophets of God were going around naked! That’s how King Saul was recognized as another prophet of God! This is the “naked truth” in the Bible!)
KING DAVID DANCED BEFORE THE LORD WITH HIS GENITALS EXPOSED.
2 Samuel 6:14, 20-23 * David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might... [20] When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, ';HOW THE KING OF ISRAEL HAS DISTINGUISHED HIMSELF TODAY, DISROBING IN THE SIGHT OF THE SLAVE GIRLS OF HIS SERVANTS AS ANY VULGAR FELLOW WOULD!'; David said to Michal, ';IT WAS BEFORE THE LORD… I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by THESE SLAVE GIRLS YOU SPOKE OF, I WILL BE HELD IN HONOR.'; And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.
(Read the whole story in full context by yourself! The lesson in the Bible is that no wife can complain about any husband dancing naked exposing his genitals before some girls and the LORD! Or your husband is authorized to stop giving your share of sex until you die!)
HOW ABOUT GOING NAKED FOR THREE (3) YEARS AS A SIGN AND A WONDER UPON SOME ODDBALL FOREIGN COUNTRIES? – Hey, Christians got themselves a God that excels in refinements! This prophet prophesied the “virgin birth”.
Isaiah 20:2-3 (KJV) At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking NAKED and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked NAKED AND BAREFOOT THREE YEARS for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
THE YOUNG PROPHET MICAH WOULD GET INTO A GODLY MOOD OF GOING NAKED AND DOING A STRANGE NUMBER ON HIMSELF!
Micah 1:8 Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and NAKED. I will howl like a jackal and moan like an owl.
The distinguishing feature of a true prophet is clearly explained in Matthew. If the fruits of their labors uplift and make individuals and society better, they are true prophets.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (King James Bible, Matthew)
the bible doesn't define a prophet. Jehovas witnesses have some interesting, some good, some bad, some absurd, and
some brilliant ideas.
Most ';false prophets'; are people who have a message that
they can't get people to listen to otherwise. They are sincere,
and believe they are trying to help others.
And yet, they spout garbage which was created to brainwash people....
anybody can become a prophet, if they have a direct relationship with god outside of the boundaries defined by anybody elses religion.
1Jo 4:1-3 ';BELOVED, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.';
A false prophet is simply this: A prophet who is NOT let by the Holy Spirit. The same applies to a false preacher.
It is impossible to lie or falsify the truth if the Spirit is within you and guiding you.
End of story.
Anyone after the Prophet Muhammed SAW is considered a guidance to whatever intention he or she sets forth.
The last one was The Comforter, it says it in your books.
Prophet means messenger of God. It does not necessary means he/she got to prophesy to qualify as one. He is the one whom God spoke THROUGH to people in a particular age. The reason why God chose this route was because people could not stand the very presence of God and demanded Moses to intercede on their behalf. Since then, whenever God has a message it will go through a prophet.
A prophet is usually born with such divine gift that is sensitive to the voice of God. It is a chosen class of people to convey His message to the people in different age. The examples are given to all prophets that are mentioned in the Bible. Nevertheless, he or she still need to repent like other sinners.
For instance, Noah was a prophet to his time to warn the people about the flood (the message), Moses was a prophet to bring Israel out, Isaiah, Ezekial etc are prophets to their alloted time.
A prophet is different from a preacher in that a preacher preach the gospel as in general, whereas prophet preaches but have SPECIFIC message to the people. They do not affiliate with any religious group and is answerable directly to God. For this reason, they are quite often being persecuted for saying things people do not like to hear. However, whatever the message is proclaimed, it must be according to the Word.
Prophet can also be classified into two groups. The major prophet in the sense that is sent to a nation or world. Another class of prophet is just a person that is given with a prophetic gift that is used only to edify his local church. He does not have any specific message to any larger group of people.
Now, what classify as a false prophet is if what they prophesied did not come to pass. The Bible clearly teaches that and I don't care how people twist and turn it or sugar coats it. A prophet under a false anointing can prophesy things that is wrong. In addition, if what he preaches that is in relation to his message is wrong (that is, not of the Word), or his life does not reflect it, then there may be something. BUT, this is where the problems lie. To decide whether it is according to the Word or not can be tainted by people's opinions and traditions. This was what blinded the religious leaders of the day when God was in flesh.
For this reason, the prophet message is sometimes accompanied by the signs from God or something to justify what the prophet says is true. Now I am not talking about secret signs from God that no one sees except the prophet himself. I am talking about public manifestation, or some sort of manifestation that others can testify of.
Genuine prophets therefore interpretes what the Bibles says, for God is the Author and therefore only Him has the right to inteprete His own Word. He interpretes by manifesting the Word. Outside of that people can at best make intellectual speculation on what the Bible says. And this often brings confusion. As in the days of Jesus, so it is now.
The only way to reveal His mysteries and clear things out is through a prophet (Amos. 3:8). But who will listen?
Just look for someone who errors in the scriptures, and leads people astray!
I am the true prophet %26amp; after me there will be no more
Lectio Divina means ';Divine Reading'; and refers specifically to a method of Scripture reading practiced by monastics since the beginning of the Church.
statio (position)
lectio (reading)
meditatio (meditation)
oratio (prayer)
contemplatio (contemplation)
collatio (discussion)
actio (action)
The classical practice of Lectio Divina--the prayerful reading of the Bible, the book Christians believe to be divinely inspired--is being rediscovered and renewed in our time. At the same time a number of ways of practicing it have sprung up leading to a certain confusion regarding its relationship to the distinct practice of Centering Prayer. A few distinctions may be helpful.
First of all, we need to distinguish Lectio Divina from Bible study, which is very useful at another time and provides a solid conceptual background for the practice of Lectio Divina.
Secondly, Lectio Divina is not the same as reading the scriptures for the purpose of private edification, encouragement, or getting acquainted with the many-sided aspects of revelation, and especially with Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God. Lectio Divina is rather a way or formula for furthering these objectives.
Thirdly, Lectio Divina is not the same as spiritual reading, which moves beyond the exclusive reading of sacred scripture to include other spiritual books such as the lives and writings of the saints.
Finally, Lectio Divina is not the same as praying the scriptures in common, a contemporary development that is sometimes identified with Lectio Divina. The classical practice of Lectio Divina was done in private and consisted in following the movement of the Holy Spirit in regard to the time one might devote to each step of the process, as well as passing from one step to another during the same period of prayer. Following a particular structure, such as is required in all forms of common prayer, tends to limit spontaneity to the movement of the Holy Spirit, which is the heart of the practice.
LECTIO DIVINA is an ancient spiritual art that is being rediscovered in our day. It is a way of allowing the Scriptures to become again what God intended that they should be - a means of uniting us to God. In lectio divina we discover our own underlying spiritual rhythm. We experience God in a gentle oscillation back and forth between spiritual activity and receptivity, in the movement from practice into contemplation and back again into spiritual practice.
LECTIO DIVINA teaches us about the God who truly loves us. In lectio divina we dare to believe that our loving God continues to embrace us today. In the word we experience ourselves as personally loved by God; as the recipients of a Word which God gives uniquely to each of us whenever we turn to the Scriptures.
FINALLY, lectio divina teaches us about ourselves. In lectio divina we discover that there is no place in our hearts, no interior corner or closet that cannot be opened and offered to God. God teaches us in lectio divina what it means to be a royal priesthood - a people called to consecrate all of our memories, our hopes and our dreams to Christ.
* Preaching -- a preaching prophet encourages, comforts, or reproves the people.
* Foretelling -- a foretelling prophet gives the people the word of God concerning the future
Source: www.biblebell.org/proph/prophecy1.html
Do you agree with this definition of the prophet of the Bible? I'm particularly interested in the opinion of Jehovah Witnesses since I'm studying their religion at the moment.
If you don't agree? Then, I'd like to know what it is that you would like to change in that definition %26amp; why?
What I come to conclude after reading this is that a ';false prophet'; doesn't necessarily need to be guided by the devil or being ill-willed when saying something that later turns out to be proven wrong. Nevertheless, if what he says in his role as the ';Preacher'; shows to be wrong he is then obviously not chosen by God and therefore not lead by him either.Who is a true or false prophet and what does he or she do? How does the Bible define a prophet?
I am muslim and I would like to add that a Prophet is chosen by God and a person by his own effort can't become Prophet.
A Prophet is infallible. Prophet may show some miracle by God's order.
Anybody who claim to be prophet after Prophet Mohammed PBUH is a false prophet.Who is a true or false prophet and what does he or she do? How does the Bible define a prophet?
I cant recall the bible definining prophet anywhere. I read it 4 times. Your are misleading people.
The bible is also not a dictionary, and this is why.
Biblically a prophet is someone who tells God's message to others.
So if you pick up the Bible and read it out loud to someone, you are a prophet.
Are you an inspired prophet? NO.
But you are fulfilling the basic meaning of the word prophet.
The last inspired prophet was the apostle John.
In ancient Israel a key to understanding a false 'inspired' prophey was two fold.
1) What he said, did it come true?
2) What he was saying was it leading people away from Jehovah and his principles.
Example: In the days of Jeremiah the false prophets were ineffect stating that Jehovah was not mad at them, that they were NOT doing anything wrong, and that Jehovah was not going to destroy Jerusalem.
Now let's fast forward to today:
We have false doctrine and telling people what is bad is good, and what is good is bad.
(Women ministers and gay ministers; Sex before marriage is okay. Organizations teaching these things are teaching falsehood.)
(Teaching pagan philosophy and not bible teaching is also wrong:
Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”
Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”
In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”
That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” )
But what about the one who finds out what he understood was wrong?
The apostles thought Jesus was setting up his kingdom, right after his death.
Christian Jews thought you still had to follow the Law and be circumised.
These faithful men accepted the change and went on serving God acceptably.
The apostle Peter had to be corrected because he was teaching partiality, yet he didn't stop being an apostle.
Meek and humble are the qualities God looks for in people.
Meek means teachable, humble means willing to put God and others ahead of self.
Are we willing to accept what the inspired Word of God says, or will we stick to the error and continue to preach it.
Give me an organization that admits it's mistakes over one that clings to tradition.
Give me an organization that bases all it's teachings on the bible, and not of pagan philosophy.
A humble and meek person or organization will accept the disciple God gives and correct their teachings.
This doesn't make them false, just human.
.
YOU CAN ONLY TELL A TRUE PROPHET OF GOD IN THE NUDE!!!
A LOT OF PROPHETS OF GOD WERE PREACHING AROUND NAKED!
1 Samuel 19 24 He* (*King Saul) STRIPPED OFF HIS ROBES and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. HE LAY THAT WAY ALL THAT DAY AND NIGHT. This is why people say, ';Is Saul also among the prophets?';* (*at that time, all the prophets of God were going around naked! That’s how King Saul was recognized as another prophet of God! This is the “naked truth” in the Bible!)
KING DAVID DANCED BEFORE THE LORD WITH HIS GENITALS EXPOSED.
2 Samuel 6:14, 20-23 * David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might... [20] When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, ';HOW THE KING OF ISRAEL HAS DISTINGUISHED HIMSELF TODAY, DISROBING IN THE SIGHT OF THE SLAVE GIRLS OF HIS SERVANTS AS ANY VULGAR FELLOW WOULD!'; David said to Michal, ';IT WAS BEFORE THE LORD… I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by THESE SLAVE GIRLS YOU SPOKE OF, I WILL BE HELD IN HONOR.'; And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.
(Read the whole story in full context by yourself! The lesson in the Bible is that no wife can complain about any husband dancing naked exposing his genitals before some girls and the LORD! Or your husband is authorized to stop giving your share of sex until you die!)
HOW ABOUT GOING NAKED FOR THREE (3) YEARS AS A SIGN AND A WONDER UPON SOME ODDBALL FOREIGN COUNTRIES? – Hey, Christians got themselves a God that excels in refinements! This prophet prophesied the “virgin birth”.
Isaiah 20:2-3 (KJV) At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking NAKED and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked NAKED AND BAREFOOT THREE YEARS for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
THE YOUNG PROPHET MICAH WOULD GET INTO A GODLY MOOD OF GOING NAKED AND DOING A STRANGE NUMBER ON HIMSELF!
Micah 1:8 Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and NAKED. I will howl like a jackal and moan like an owl.
The distinguishing feature of a true prophet is clearly explained in Matthew. If the fruits of their labors uplift and make individuals and society better, they are true prophets.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (King James Bible, Matthew)
the bible doesn't define a prophet. Jehovas witnesses have some interesting, some good, some bad, some absurd, and
some brilliant ideas.
Most ';false prophets'; are people who have a message that
they can't get people to listen to otherwise. They are sincere,
and believe they are trying to help others.
And yet, they spout garbage which was created to brainwash people....
anybody can become a prophet, if they have a direct relationship with god outside of the boundaries defined by anybody elses religion.
1Jo 4:1-3 ';BELOVED, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.';
A false prophet is simply this: A prophet who is NOT let by the Holy Spirit. The same applies to a false preacher.
It is impossible to lie or falsify the truth if the Spirit is within you and guiding you.
End of story.
Anyone after the Prophet Muhammed SAW is considered a guidance to whatever intention he or she sets forth.
The last one was The Comforter, it says it in your books.
Prophet means messenger of God. It does not necessary means he/she got to prophesy to qualify as one. He is the one whom God spoke THROUGH to people in a particular age. The reason why God chose this route was because people could not stand the very presence of God and demanded Moses to intercede on their behalf. Since then, whenever God has a message it will go through a prophet.
A prophet is usually born with such divine gift that is sensitive to the voice of God. It is a chosen class of people to convey His message to the people in different age. The examples are given to all prophets that are mentioned in the Bible. Nevertheless, he or she still need to repent like other sinners.
For instance, Noah was a prophet to his time to warn the people about the flood (the message), Moses was a prophet to bring Israel out, Isaiah, Ezekial etc are prophets to their alloted time.
A prophet is different from a preacher in that a preacher preach the gospel as in general, whereas prophet preaches but have SPECIFIC message to the people. They do not affiliate with any religious group and is answerable directly to God. For this reason, they are quite often being persecuted for saying things people do not like to hear. However, whatever the message is proclaimed, it must be according to the Word.
Prophet can also be classified into two groups. The major prophet in the sense that is sent to a nation or world. Another class of prophet is just a person that is given with a prophetic gift that is used only to edify his local church. He does not have any specific message to any larger group of people.
Now, what classify as a false prophet is if what they prophesied did not come to pass. The Bible clearly teaches that and I don't care how people twist and turn it or sugar coats it. A prophet under a false anointing can prophesy things that is wrong. In addition, if what he preaches that is in relation to his message is wrong (that is, not of the Word), or his life does not reflect it, then there may be something. BUT, this is where the problems lie. To decide whether it is according to the Word or not can be tainted by people's opinions and traditions. This was what blinded the religious leaders of the day when God was in flesh.
For this reason, the prophet message is sometimes accompanied by the signs from God or something to justify what the prophet says is true. Now I am not talking about secret signs from God that no one sees except the prophet himself. I am talking about public manifestation, or some sort of manifestation that others can testify of.
Genuine prophets therefore interpretes what the Bibles says, for God is the Author and therefore only Him has the right to inteprete His own Word. He interpretes by manifesting the Word. Outside of that people can at best make intellectual speculation on what the Bible says. And this often brings confusion. As in the days of Jesus, so it is now.
The only way to reveal His mysteries and clear things out is through a prophet (Amos. 3:8). But who will listen?
Just look for someone who errors in the scriptures, and leads people astray!
I am the true prophet %26amp; after me there will be no more
Lectio Divina means ';Divine Reading'; and refers specifically to a method of Scripture reading practiced by monastics since the beginning of the Church.
statio (position)
lectio (reading)
meditatio (meditation)
oratio (prayer)
contemplatio (contemplation)
collatio (discussion)
actio (action)
The classical practice of Lectio Divina--the prayerful reading of the Bible, the book Christians believe to be divinely inspired--is being rediscovered and renewed in our time. At the same time a number of ways of practicing it have sprung up leading to a certain confusion regarding its relationship to the distinct practice of Centering Prayer. A few distinctions may be helpful.
First of all, we need to distinguish Lectio Divina from Bible study, which is very useful at another time and provides a solid conceptual background for the practice of Lectio Divina.
Secondly, Lectio Divina is not the same as reading the scriptures for the purpose of private edification, encouragement, or getting acquainted with the many-sided aspects of revelation, and especially with Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God. Lectio Divina is rather a way or formula for furthering these objectives.
Thirdly, Lectio Divina is not the same as spiritual reading, which moves beyond the exclusive reading of sacred scripture to include other spiritual books such as the lives and writings of the saints.
Finally, Lectio Divina is not the same as praying the scriptures in common, a contemporary development that is sometimes identified with Lectio Divina. The classical practice of Lectio Divina was done in private and consisted in following the movement of the Holy Spirit in regard to the time one might devote to each step of the process, as well as passing from one step to another during the same period of prayer. Following a particular structure, such as is required in all forms of common prayer, tends to limit spontaneity to the movement of the Holy Spirit, which is the heart of the practice.
LECTIO DIVINA is an ancient spiritual art that is being rediscovered in our day. It is a way of allowing the Scriptures to become again what God intended that they should be - a means of uniting us to God. In lectio divina we discover our own underlying spiritual rhythm. We experience God in a gentle oscillation back and forth between spiritual activity and receptivity, in the movement from practice into contemplation and back again into spiritual practice.
LECTIO DIVINA teaches us about the God who truly loves us. In lectio divina we dare to believe that our loving God continues to embrace us today. In the word we experience ourselves as personally loved by God; as the recipients of a Word which God gives uniquely to each of us whenever we turn to the Scriptures.
FINALLY, lectio divina teaches us about ourselves. In lectio divina we discover that there is no place in our hearts, no interior corner or closet that cannot be opened and offered to God. God teaches us in lectio divina what it means to be a royal priesthood - a people called to consecrate all of our memories, our hopes and our dreams to Christ.
What defines a false prophet, what defines a true prophet?
I wondering...how is a prophet defined. How do we know when we have a true prophet? How do we know when we have a false prophet.What defines a false prophet, what defines a true prophet?
A true prophet has a track record of 100%. If they miss even one prophecy then they are false.What defines a false prophet, what defines a true prophet?
A true prophet isnt welcome in his own town %26amp; most prophets were attacked for doing a reasonable job, look what happened to Dear John The Baptist? False prophets seem to live longer. The word prophet has been replaced with 'claivoyant/medium' - The one on Blackpool Beach isnt too bad but charges - I think its wrong to sell a gift. Its all too easy to predict whats going to happen with media being as advanced as it is - Enoch Powel made a prediction too %26amp; its still not nice to hear.....
Well for a lot of people it happens that the true prophet is the one who gains the most followers.
Opinion.
True prophets are more uncomfortable to listen to. They don't want anything from you themselves. They probably don't even like their jobs. They usually want you to change something about yourself that you already know is wrong but you don't want to think about because it would be a major hassle.
A false prophet is all about good news, and he loves his work. You're doing great! All you need to be even better is an even more positive attitude and a few of my special techniques. A false prophet is glad to take your money and you're glad to give it to him.
Jesus said you will know them by their friut (deeds) that is his followers but I think it aplyes to prophets as well.
False prophet will simply declare himself prophet.
Deuteronomy 18.22 ';22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.';
If a prophet tells you to put your wad on such and such a nag's nose and the nag finishes last, it is proof that the prophesy was false and so is the prophet. On the other hand If a prophet tells you to bet the nag's nose and he finishes first. The prophecy and the prophet are true.
If you are talking about a ';fore sayer'; then you have to see if what he says comes to pass. But it will not go against what is in the Bible. If you are talking about a ';forth sayer'; then does what he says match the Bible.
A true prophet has a track record of 100%. If they miss even one prophecy then they are false.What defines a false prophet, what defines a true prophet?
A true prophet isnt welcome in his own town %26amp; most prophets were attacked for doing a reasonable job, look what happened to Dear John The Baptist? False prophets seem to live longer. The word prophet has been replaced with 'claivoyant/medium' - The one on Blackpool Beach isnt too bad but charges - I think its wrong to sell a gift. Its all too easy to predict whats going to happen with media being as advanced as it is - Enoch Powel made a prediction too %26amp; its still not nice to hear.....
Well for a lot of people it happens that the true prophet is the one who gains the most followers.
Opinion.
True prophets are more uncomfortable to listen to. They don't want anything from you themselves. They probably don't even like their jobs. They usually want you to change something about yourself that you already know is wrong but you don't want to think about because it would be a major hassle.
A false prophet is all about good news, and he loves his work. You're doing great! All you need to be even better is an even more positive attitude and a few of my special techniques. A false prophet is glad to take your money and you're glad to give it to him.
Jesus said you will know them by their friut (deeds) that is his followers but I think it aplyes to prophets as well.
False prophet will simply declare himself prophet.
Deuteronomy 18.22 ';22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.';
If a prophet tells you to put your wad on such and such a nag's nose and the nag finishes last, it is proof that the prophesy was false and so is the prophet. On the other hand If a prophet tells you to bet the nag's nose and he finishes first. The prophecy and the prophet are true.
If you are talking about a ';fore sayer'; then you have to see if what he says comes to pass. But it will not go against what is in the Bible. If you are talking about a ';forth sayer'; then does what he says match the Bible.
True or False: Weber defined and thought of social classes in the same way as Marx --?
they both saw social classes as groups of people who share a common way of participating in the mode of production.
T or F. If false why. Thanks for your answers.True or False: Weber defined and thought of social classes in the same way as Marx --?
trueTrue or False: Weber defined and thought of social classes in the same way as Marx --?
If you're not going to pay attention in the class, or read the necessary materials to answer the questions yourself, why are you taking it?
true but weber thought status and life chances were important marx was all about the economics
T or F. If false why. Thanks for your answers.True or False: Weber defined and thought of social classes in the same way as Marx --?
trueTrue or False: Weber defined and thought of social classes in the same way as Marx --?
If you're not going to pay attention in the class, or read the necessary materials to answer the questions yourself, why are you taking it?
true but weber thought status and life chances were important marx was all about the economics
Western boundary currents can have well-defined edges, is this true or false, its one of my review questions?
I'm having trouble finding the answer to this one, i looked in my text i cant seem to find this one.Western boundary currents can have well-defined edges, is this true or false, its one of my review questions?
All currents in the oceans have well defined boundaries or edges. It makes sense to think of them as rivers bound by water. Differences in temperature, salinity and sediments with resultant different colors make most ocean currents easily defined. Over distance the edges become less well defined as mixing occurs, similar to a stream breaking up as it becomes a swamp or river mouth delta.short hair cut
All currents in the oceans have well defined boundaries or edges. It makes sense to think of them as rivers bound by water. Differences in temperature, salinity and sediments with resultant different colors make most ocean currents easily defined. Over distance the edges become less well defined as mixing occurs, similar to a stream breaking up as it becomes a swamp or river mouth delta.
Free loto are define i am winner this is true or false?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:06:03 -0500
From: ';REPLY BY DEC 28'; %26lt;Coordinator@FreeLotto.com%26gt; View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by FreeLotto.com. Learn more
To: lucky_sharma_hmr@yahoo.com
Subject: ***Message for Lalit Sharma***
MEMORANDUM
Office of Prize Administration
DATE: December 25th, 2006
TO: C. Alison, CFO
FROM: S. Roman, Prize Administrator
RE: Paid %26amp; Pending Check Release Status Notification
Pursuant to our discussion, below please find a list of
recent and pending winners as well as their respective
winning status. Note that the winners who took advantage
of the hassle-free F.A.S.T. offer had their winning checks
sent immediately following the win and status marked to
PAID. This includes our most recent $10 Million Dollar
winner - Eric Prevost from France.
FIRSTNAMELASTNAMECITYSTATE ORAMOUNTSTATUS
COUNTRY
SusanVasquez WaukeganIL$1,000,000.00PAID
IsabelleBradley W.MifflinPA$10,000,000.00PAID
LalitSharmaHamirpur $10,000.00PENDING
ElaineD.StatesvilleNC$300.00 PENDING
IleneClapsBoca RatonFL$10,000.00PAID
LalitSharmaHamirpur $1,000,000.00PENDING
Richard KnueOconomowocWI$300.00 PAID
EricPrevost CalvadosFrance$10,000,000.00PAID
JosephLyddane Waldorf MD$10,000.00PAID
GingerBeckerSan AntonioTX$100,000.00PAID
LalitSharmaHamirpur $1,000,000.00PENDING
Timothy DahnkeKennesawGA$100,000.00PAID
JerryMitchelsonSierra VistaAZ$300.00 PAID
DennisS.Oak HarborOH$100,000.00PENDING
BillHerriottGlasgow UK$1,000,000.00PAID
A number of the pending winners listed above may be
qualified to receive a check in the amount specified by
verifying their PIN # on the following F.A.S.T. form, in
conjunction with submitting the winning entry in accordance
with FreeLotto rules, terms and conditions. The convenient
F.A.S.T. service guarantees that a winning check in the
amount of $1 Million will be released to its rightful
winner upon said submission in conjunction with the rules.
Here is the URL for PIN#89174285 Verification:
http://www.freelotto.com/offer.asp?offer=90537%26amp;FID=e2fa35669714Free loto are define i am winner this is true or false?
you need to ask your self . did I apply to this lottery ? also ask your self why me ?? ask your self why giving this much money to me and they wont give a poor person a loaf of bread .if they send you a check and you cash it you will go to jail . trash all corspondence from these jerks. most of all learn your self to say there's NOTHING is FREE
From: ';REPLY BY DEC 28'; %26lt;Coordinator@FreeLotto.com%26gt; View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by FreeLotto.com. Learn more
To: lucky_sharma_hmr@yahoo.com
Subject: ***Message for Lalit Sharma***
MEMORANDUM
Office of Prize Administration
DATE: December 25th, 2006
TO: C. Alison, CFO
FROM: S. Roman, Prize Administrator
RE: Paid %26amp; Pending Check Release Status Notification
Pursuant to our discussion, below please find a list of
recent and pending winners as well as their respective
winning status. Note that the winners who took advantage
of the hassle-free F.A.S.T. offer had their winning checks
sent immediately following the win and status marked to
PAID. This includes our most recent $10 Million Dollar
winner - Eric Prevost from France.
FIRSTNAMELASTNAMECITYSTATE ORAMOUNTSTATUS
COUNTRY
SusanVasquez WaukeganIL$1,000,000.00PAID
IsabelleBradley W.MifflinPA$10,000,000.00PAID
LalitSharmaHamirpur $10,000.00PENDING
ElaineD.StatesvilleNC$300.00 PENDING
IleneClapsBoca RatonFL$10,000.00PAID
LalitSharmaHamirpur $1,000,000.00PENDING
Richard KnueOconomowocWI$300.00 PAID
EricPrevost CalvadosFrance$10,000,000.00PAID
JosephLyddane Waldorf MD$10,000.00PAID
GingerBeckerSan AntonioTX$100,000.00PAID
LalitSharmaHamirpur $1,000,000.00PENDING
Timothy DahnkeKennesawGA$100,000.00PAID
JerryMitchelsonSierra VistaAZ$300.00 PAID
DennisS.Oak HarborOH$100,000.00PENDING
BillHerriottGlasgow UK$1,000,000.00PAID
A number of the pending winners listed above may be
qualified to receive a check in the amount specified by
verifying their PIN # on the following F.A.S.T. form, in
conjunction with submitting the winning entry in accordance
with FreeLotto rules, terms and conditions. The convenient
F.A.S.T. service guarantees that a winning check in the
amount of $1 Million will be released to its rightful
winner upon said submission in conjunction with the rules.
Here is the URL for PIN#89174285 Verification:
http://www.freelotto.com/offer.asp?offer=90537%26amp;FID=e2fa35669714Free loto are define i am winner this is true or false?
you need to ask your self . did I apply to this lottery ? also ask your self why me ?? ask your self why giving this much money to me and they wont give a poor person a loaf of bread .if they send you a check and you cash it you will go to jail . trash all corspondence from these jerks. most of all learn your self to say there's NOTHING is FREE
If a theory can't be defined as true or false, is it acceptable to take what is most comfortable to accept?
Are you a model? The way your finger tips fondle your cheek in this picture is a definite sign of a natural born model. Gee, did you take that flick on your own, I mean cause, good golly the lighting that reflects from you鈥檙e teeth off in to reality sure seems so pro.
Theory? Take what makes sense.If a theory can't be defined as true or false, is it acceptable to take what is most comfortable to accept?
It is to be accepted according to prons and cons of a case before a concerned person. Nothing is true or false on earth but it is relatively true or false according situation.If a theory can't be defined as true or false, is it acceptable to take what is most comfortable to accept?
Yeah, I think comfort can be a sign that something sits well with your spirit or you can call it intuition.
yes, i think it would be acceptable
Yes if it feels right to your conscience.
yeah i think so
yes
Theory? Take what makes sense.If a theory can't be defined as true or false, is it acceptable to take what is most comfortable to accept?
It is to be accepted according to prons and cons of a case before a concerned person. Nothing is true or false on earth but it is relatively true or false according situation.If a theory can't be defined as true or false, is it acceptable to take what is most comfortable to accept?
Yeah, I think comfort can be a sign that something sits well with your spirit or you can call it intuition.
yes, i think it would be acceptable
Yes if it feels right to your conscience.
yeah i think so
yes
Gossip--- I'm a bit confused about the whole gossip topic.The way I define gossip is when someone makes false
tales up about someone that hurts them. I find myself at times saying something and then being paranoid or feeling guilty for repeating something.(not often)I find that i question myself was i wrong for saying anything?You can find good and bad in everything you say all day long.It could drive you crazy.What is considered to have conversation verses to have gossip?To me when you hear a family member is expecting a baby .You will then turn to your family members and pass the news. Is it wrong to say anything to your immediate family?Or would it be considered gossip because their young and not married or cuz you herd it through the grape vine and not them?What is gossip define as?Gossip--- I'm a bit confused about the whole gossip topic.The way I define gossip is when someone makes false
No, gossip isn't always a false tale. Gossip is an activity done behind the person's back, whether the subject is the truth or a lie.Gossip--- I'm a bit confused about the whole gossip topic.The way I define gossip is when someone makes false
Gossip is mainly like telling other people on updates about other stuff or people. Some times it's true, other times, it false. Sometimes it's good, others bad. Either way, it's mainly updating other people about other things like dating, break-ups, tests, etc... it can be both bad and good at times.
I've always thought of gossip as something that may be hurtful to or negative about another person....even if it's true. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself if you'd want it said about YOU...even if it's the truth.
Gossip can also be considered ';heresay';. If you pass on information about someone...good or bad...that you didn't hear from the person themselves. Stories have a way of getting lost in translation from one person to the next, and before you know it...the story's mostly false.
I like to think of it as making copies of something. The original document is always the purest representation...the first copy of the original is usually okay too...but then you start making ';copies of copies';...and eventually the quality of the document is total crap and you can hardly make out what it is anymore.
Gossip is talking about someone when they are not in your presence whether it's good or bad and it's a very not nice thing to do.
Gossip isn't always false. I think it can be defined as simply as talking about someone else, but there's usually a negative connotation, like, that you're not supposed to tell someone something and you do anyway. That's the way I look at it, at least.
Like someone else said, ';gossip'; has a negative connotation. But it's not always false. You can spread false gossip which is usually considered ';rumors';. But gossip can be just spreading any news that people might not care about, or that you have no reason to spread. For example, celebrity gossip... we can spread whatever we want about celebrities, whether it's true or not, but most people don't (or shouldn't) care, and we have no reason to spread it. I hope that helps some!
Gossip is when you are talking about somebody else's business when they are not around.
No, gossip isn't always a false tale. Gossip is an activity done behind the person's back, whether the subject is the truth or a lie.Gossip--- I'm a bit confused about the whole gossip topic.The way I define gossip is when someone makes false
Gossip is mainly like telling other people on updates about other stuff or people. Some times it's true, other times, it false. Sometimes it's good, others bad. Either way, it's mainly updating other people about other things like dating, break-ups, tests, etc... it can be both bad and good at times.
I've always thought of gossip as something that may be hurtful to or negative about another person....even if it's true. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself if you'd want it said about YOU...even if it's the truth.
Gossip can also be considered ';heresay';. If you pass on information about someone...good or bad...that you didn't hear from the person themselves. Stories have a way of getting lost in translation from one person to the next, and before you know it...the story's mostly false.
I like to think of it as making copies of something. The original document is always the purest representation...the first copy of the original is usually okay too...but then you start making ';copies of copies';...and eventually the quality of the document is total crap and you can hardly make out what it is anymore.
Gossip is talking about someone when they are not in your presence whether it's good or bad and it's a very not nice thing to do.
Gossip isn't always false. I think it can be defined as simply as talking about someone else, but there's usually a negative connotation, like, that you're not supposed to tell someone something and you do anyway. That's the way I look at it, at least.
Like someone else said, ';gossip'; has a negative connotation. But it's not always false. You can spread false gossip which is usually considered ';rumors';. But gossip can be just spreading any news that people might not care about, or that you have no reason to spread. For example, celebrity gossip... we can spread whatever we want about celebrities, whether it's true or not, but most people don't (or shouldn't) care, and we have no reason to spread it. I hope that helps some!
Gossip is when you are talking about somebody else's business when they are not around.
True or False: The Indian Supreme Court has refused to rule on what beliefs define Hinduism.?
The Indian Supreme Court has refused to rule on what beliefs define Hinduism.
True
FalseTrue or False: The Indian Supreme Court has refused to rule on what beliefs define Hinduism.?
Is this a test?
True
FalseTrue or False: The Indian Supreme Court has refused to rule on what beliefs define Hinduism.?
Is this a test?
True and false for 10 points and define the key term for the answer false?
1 the (continuous body) of congressional committees allows them to check on agencies in the executive branch.
2 a (joint committee) is composed of memebers of both houses, can be investigative in nature, and may issue periodic reports to the House and Senate.
3 the powerful but unoffical post of (president of the Senate) involves steering floor action to a party's benefit
4 unlikely to pass on their own, (resolutions) are provisions often attached to unrelated measures.
5 (capitalism) is an economic and political philosophy based on the idea that the benefits of economic activitu namely wealthy, should be equally distributed throughout a society.
6 which label appears in the box Z
w-informed rght to counsel and to remain silent
x- Grand july or prosecutor weights evidence
informed of charge by indictment or information (no excessive bail)
y-speedy and public trial by impaerial jury
no excessive fine or cruel and unusual punishment
now all u have to do is
find ZTrue and false for 10 points and define the key term for the answer false?
u have the answers on ur emailTrue and false for 10 points and define the key term for the answer false?
heres a thing, do ur own hw....
2 a (joint committee) is composed of memebers of both houses, can be investigative in nature, and may issue periodic reports to the House and Senate.
3 the powerful but unoffical post of (president of the Senate) involves steering floor action to a party's benefit
4 unlikely to pass on their own, (resolutions) are provisions often attached to unrelated measures.
5 (capitalism) is an economic and political philosophy based on the idea that the benefits of economic activitu namely wealthy, should be equally distributed throughout a society.
6 which label appears in the box Z
w-informed rght to counsel and to remain silent
x- Grand july or prosecutor weights evidence
informed of charge by indictment or information (no excessive bail)
y-speedy and public trial by impaerial jury
no excessive fine or cruel and unusual punishment
now all u have to do is
find ZTrue and false for 10 points and define the key term for the answer false?
u have the answers on ur emailTrue and false for 10 points and define the key term for the answer false?
heres a thing, do ur own hw....
People in R&S section often use the word illusion, false or unreal – how do we define it?
How can unreal stem forth from Real?People in R%26amp;S section often use the word illusion, false or unreal – how do we define it?
You have to choose answer from any one below for your question:
Maya as Goddess, Maya as concept, Maya as an illusion or as matter (prakriti, real).
In Vedanta philosophy all roads lead to the SAME destination!
One has the choice to choose any path!!
Maya is like Theory of Light (Wave theory, Corpuscular / Matter theory).
How can unreal stem forth from Real?
Yes with reason - Advaita Vedanta philosophy
No with reason - Vishistadvaita Vedanta philosophy
Never with reason - Dvaita Vedanta philosophy
Maya (Goddess),(illusion/ false/ unreal), (prakriti,real):
Maya (Sanskrit माया māyā, in Indian religions, is a polyvalent term. Maya, is the principal deity who creates, perpetuates and governs the phantasmagoria, illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe.
Maya as the Goddess:
In Hinduism, Maya is also seen as a form of Laksmi, a Divine Goddess. Her most famous explication is seen in the Devi Mahatmyam, where she is known as Mahamaya.
Essentially, Mahamaya (great Maya) both blinds us in delusion (moha) and has the power to free us from it. Maya, superimposed on Brahman, the one divine ground and essence of monist Hinduism, is envisioned as one with Laxmi, Durga, etc.
Shri Ramakrishna often spoke of Mother Maya and combined deep Hindu allegory with the idea that Maya is a lesser reality that must be overcome so that one is able to realize their true Self.
In the Hindu scripture 'Devi Mahatmyam,' Mahamaya (Great Maya) is said to cover Vishnu's eyes in Yoganidra (Divine Sleep) during cycles of existence when all is resolved into one. By exhorting Mahamaya to release Her illusory hold on Vishnu, Brahma is able to bring Vishnu to aid him in killing two demons, Madhu and Kaitabh, who have manifested from Vishnu's sleeping form. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa often spoke of Mother Maya and combined deep Hindu allegory with the idea that Maya is a lesser reality that must be overcome so that one is able to realize his or her true Self.
Maya as Mahalaxmi was called upon when the gods and goddesses were helpless against the demon Mahisasura. The combined rage of all the gods including Brahma Vishnu and Shiva created her. She is the most powerful of all the gods and goddesses in heaven. The gods gave her ornaments, weapons and her bearer,the lion. She was unassailable. She called upon the demon, had a fierce battle against Mahisasura and his huge army herself. She killed the demon and restored heaven back to the gods and goddesses. Thus She is even now the protector of the universe which is lying in her lap.
Maya in Hindu philosophy:
In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya is held to be an illusion, a veiling of the true, unitary Self — the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. The concept of Maya was expounded in the Hindu scriptures known as the Upanishads. Many philosophies or religions seek to ';pierce the veil'; of Maya in order to glimpse the transcendent truth, from which the illusion of a physical reality springs, drawing from the idea that first came to life in the Hindu stream of Vedanta.
Maya is neither true nor untrue. Since Brahman is the only truth, Maya cannot be true. Since Maya causes the material world to be seen, it cannot be untrue. Hence, Maya is described as indescribable. She has two principle functions — one is to veil Brahman and obscure and conceal it from our consciousness. The other is to present and promulgate the material world and the veil of duality instead of Brahman. The veil of Maya is piercable and with dilligence and grace, may be permanently rent. Consider an illusion of a rope being confused as a snake in the darkness. Just as this illusion gets destroyed when true knowledge of the rope is perceived, similarly, Maya gets destroyed for a person when they perceive Brahman with transendental knowledge.
A metaphor is also given — when the reflection of Brahman falls on Maya, Brahman appears as God (the Supreme Lord). Pragmatically, where the duality of the world is regarded as true, Maya becomes the divine magical power of the Supreme Lord. Maya is the veritable fabric of duality and she performs this role at the behest of the Supreme Lord. God is not bound by Maya, just as a magician is not illusioned and deluded by their own magic.
Maya and Reality:
1) Advaitins believe everything is “Maya” except Paramatma. This means even the whole world is an illusion. To explain this, advaitins have three types of reality.
They are:
•Apparent Reality (Pratibhasika Sat) – Example: Mistaking rope for a snake.
•Relative Reality (Vyavaharika Sat) – Example: World, Sky, Water, Fire, Earth etc
•Absolute Reality (Paramarthika Sat) – Brahman
For Shankara, maya is an illusory appearance of reality, occurring when the plurality of the phenomenal world is superimposed on the unity of Brahman.
2) Vishistadvaitins believe exactly the opposite. Every object, Jivatma, and the world are and even dreams very much real. Mistaking a rope for a snake is just an illusion, but the rope exists and real and so does the snake. Vishistadvaitins interpret Maya as matter (prakriti) and not as an illusion. Upanishads explain at great lengths the creation of cosmos and the coming about of the matter from Mahat. Upanishads say the Brahman created the world out of Maya. Some people interpret Maya as an illusion and some as matter.
The reasons given by vishistadvaitins for considering the world is real are:
•Vedas describe Brahman as: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born, by whom all these beings live, in whom all these beings rest, after death.
•Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So, how can the world, which has evolved from Brahman, be unreal?
•Brahman is also instrumental cause of this world, he creates the world. So, how can a thing, which has been created by Brahman, be unreal?
For Ramanuja, however, maya is real and is the plurality of attributes which are manifested by Brahman. Maya is the way in which Brahman is manifested in the phenomenal world.
3) Dvaitins believe that the world is real and the manifest world is real and eternal too, unlike Shankara’s world which is Maya. Dvaitins subscribe to five eternal differences in relationship between jiva-atman, Brahman and the world.
The differences are:
•between Brahman and the individual soul
•between soul and matter
•between one soul and another soul
•between the soul and matter
•between one piece of matter and another.
This is the important distinction between Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.People in R%26amp;S section often use the word illusion, false or unreal – how do we define it?
Right. Illusion is false perception,false and unreal is not true to 'fact'! Unreal has no existence in reality, it is only the construct of the mind which itself is a myth as U.G.Krishnamurthy calls it: Mind is a Myth. Mirror reflect reality, often distorts it too(medium effect), but what is in the mirror is not real and yet it reflect what is out there.Mirror reflection can not be said as stemming from the real, poor 'real' has no role in it! Keeping the mirror/mind clean, pure,highly transparent alone would resolve the so called dichotomy posed in your question as, then, the reality is 'seen' as it is. Till then, R%26amp;S, people and the world keep on throwing myths of words like illusion , false and unreal!!
The answer given by C. Sri Vidya Rajagopalan is a very good one. I feel foolish in try to give my own answer but i will try.
Reality is analogue but our perception of reality is digital. We name and label things to put them in box's. these symbols of the world around us are the illusion. By trying to classify everything our simplification means we do see the totality of it. We then begin seeing the world in terms of our mental symbols thus mistaking the map for the terrain. This is the way we change reality into illusion.
real is the root of unreal
As in Dream when there are objects created and perceived, and in reality these objects does not exist. Similarly it is said about the Reality or Soul which is defined as Pure Consciousness.
I have read a story where Lord Shiva teaches Sage Vashista about the nature of Reality, there he says that this Pure Consciousness comes under delusion that is knower and that there is a object of knowledge. Then from that comes everything such as mind, ego etc etc.
A Rope may seem like a snake to a deluded, but when he knows the truth then there is only rope but no snake.
That which is false is usually an imitation of that which is real. False teachers take the real thing and add some of their own false teachings to it. In the process of adding these lies, it is made counterfeit. (The religious cults).
It is something like rat poison. Rat poison is made up of 90% good food, but the 10% poison is enough to kill the rat.
In oder to protect oneself from these counterfeit teachings, we must study and know the truth.
Bankers are not taught the study of counterfiet money. They are taught the details of the real thing. Then they can identify that which is counterfeit.
Illusion is something which does not exist permanently.It keeps changing.At first whatever we see is real for us.Once we come to know the truth we know that is not real.
Any thing we see in full conscious, that is observing from the root, everything is unreal.
Because we find the unreal,we search for the real.
The real is something which has the potential of the unreal.
It is a dyssynchronicity in sense perception and the thing in its self. Inaccurate sense perception is partly corrected in stereoscopic sense systems, increasing probability for predictable triangulation for object placement. You notice all sense systems have symmetry. That is for enhancement for synchronistic subsystem sense agents so that multiple sensing for one thing checks for errors in a things relations to other things, knowing what a thing is not enhances our knowledge derived immediately from sense impression of the thing its self. Having more than one affirms the others in their synchronicity (same timeness). A loss of time sense equals loss of real sense and the relativity for space perception.
The same way that being illiterate derives from being literate
Shanky, i love this question...although i feel inadequate to answer it. C. Sri Vidya Rajagopalan has introduced a lifetime's information to chew upon...and while i reel from attempted consumption of that information, i also feel an ';opening'; taking place that absorbs, sifts, and accepts ';allness and nothingness,'; ';limitation and infinity,'; ';temporariness and eternity.'; In other words, everything that is or ever was or ever will be is contained in Source/God/All That Is. Eras and individuals have received revelations, that have'; informed'; them, and off-shoots or branches of interpretation have ';manifested,'; from them. i see the metaphor of Source reducting (my own made up word, apparently, but none other will do to illustrate ';reduction';) or ';stepping down'; Its unknowability to knowable (though perhaps, only partially knowable) increments, much as the Power Station must step down through transformers its vast electrical energy for use by householders. The small amount of electricity we receive through the outlets in our houses does not invalidate its greater source, nor is it, therefore, an illusion, false, or unreal. Yet, these are the words we have chosen to designate separation from source/Source, having to rely on the limitations of language. We cannot say that Real/Source/Power Station does not exist merely because we are focused on It/It/its lesser aspect as unreal/source/electrical outlet. We struggle to differentiate this from That, and in doing so find language awkward and incapable of speaking Truth. We could as easily say ';low,'; as opposed to ';High';, or ';here'; as opposed to ';There'; in our attempt to show separateness from source/Source. So, technically, none of these word choices are perfect or pure; and they do focus on separation rather than oneness/Oneness (the containment of the ';lesser'; within the ';greater';). i am struggling right now to select from inadequate and misleading pointers to that which i am trying to say...it cannot be done. So, while it is true that nothing unreal can stem from the Real, it is our human way to see only the finite. i am confident that your point is well taken by all readers. However, what's a human to do...until we are ';realized,'; we are limited in perception and experience.
i am Siriusshort hair cut
You have to choose answer from any one below for your question:
Maya as Goddess, Maya as concept, Maya as an illusion or as matter (prakriti, real).
In Vedanta philosophy all roads lead to the SAME destination!
One has the choice to choose any path!!
Maya is like Theory of Light (Wave theory, Corpuscular / Matter theory).
How can unreal stem forth from Real?
Yes with reason - Advaita Vedanta philosophy
No with reason - Vishistadvaita Vedanta philosophy
Never with reason - Dvaita Vedanta philosophy
Maya (Goddess),(illusion/ false/ unreal), (prakriti,real):
Maya (Sanskrit माया māyā, in Indian religions, is a polyvalent term. Maya, is the principal deity who creates, perpetuates and governs the phantasmagoria, illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe.
Maya as the Goddess:
In Hinduism, Maya is also seen as a form of Laksmi, a Divine Goddess. Her most famous explication is seen in the Devi Mahatmyam, where she is known as Mahamaya.
Essentially, Mahamaya (great Maya) both blinds us in delusion (moha) and has the power to free us from it. Maya, superimposed on Brahman, the one divine ground and essence of monist Hinduism, is envisioned as one with Laxmi, Durga, etc.
Shri Ramakrishna often spoke of Mother Maya and combined deep Hindu allegory with the idea that Maya is a lesser reality that must be overcome so that one is able to realize their true Self.
In the Hindu scripture 'Devi Mahatmyam,' Mahamaya (Great Maya) is said to cover Vishnu's eyes in Yoganidra (Divine Sleep) during cycles of existence when all is resolved into one. By exhorting Mahamaya to release Her illusory hold on Vishnu, Brahma is able to bring Vishnu to aid him in killing two demons, Madhu and Kaitabh, who have manifested from Vishnu's sleeping form. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa often spoke of Mother Maya and combined deep Hindu allegory with the idea that Maya is a lesser reality that must be overcome so that one is able to realize his or her true Self.
Maya as Mahalaxmi was called upon when the gods and goddesses were helpless against the demon Mahisasura. The combined rage of all the gods including Brahma Vishnu and Shiva created her. She is the most powerful of all the gods and goddesses in heaven. The gods gave her ornaments, weapons and her bearer,the lion. She was unassailable. She called upon the demon, had a fierce battle against Mahisasura and his huge army herself. She killed the demon and restored heaven back to the gods and goddesses. Thus She is even now the protector of the universe which is lying in her lap.
Maya in Hindu philosophy:
In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya is held to be an illusion, a veiling of the true, unitary Self — the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. The concept of Maya was expounded in the Hindu scriptures known as the Upanishads. Many philosophies or religions seek to ';pierce the veil'; of Maya in order to glimpse the transcendent truth, from which the illusion of a physical reality springs, drawing from the idea that first came to life in the Hindu stream of Vedanta.
Maya is neither true nor untrue. Since Brahman is the only truth, Maya cannot be true. Since Maya causes the material world to be seen, it cannot be untrue. Hence, Maya is described as indescribable. She has two principle functions — one is to veil Brahman and obscure and conceal it from our consciousness. The other is to present and promulgate the material world and the veil of duality instead of Brahman. The veil of Maya is piercable and with dilligence and grace, may be permanently rent. Consider an illusion of a rope being confused as a snake in the darkness. Just as this illusion gets destroyed when true knowledge of the rope is perceived, similarly, Maya gets destroyed for a person when they perceive Brahman with transendental knowledge.
A metaphor is also given — when the reflection of Brahman falls on Maya, Brahman appears as God (the Supreme Lord). Pragmatically, where the duality of the world is regarded as true, Maya becomes the divine magical power of the Supreme Lord. Maya is the veritable fabric of duality and she performs this role at the behest of the Supreme Lord. God is not bound by Maya, just as a magician is not illusioned and deluded by their own magic.
Maya and Reality:
1) Advaitins believe everything is “Maya” except Paramatma. This means even the whole world is an illusion. To explain this, advaitins have three types of reality.
They are:
•Apparent Reality (Pratibhasika Sat) – Example: Mistaking rope for a snake.
•Relative Reality (Vyavaharika Sat) – Example: World, Sky, Water, Fire, Earth etc
•Absolute Reality (Paramarthika Sat) – Brahman
For Shankara, maya is an illusory appearance of reality, occurring when the plurality of the phenomenal world is superimposed on the unity of Brahman.
2) Vishistadvaitins believe exactly the opposite. Every object, Jivatma, and the world are and even dreams very much real. Mistaking a rope for a snake is just an illusion, but the rope exists and real and so does the snake. Vishistadvaitins interpret Maya as matter (prakriti) and not as an illusion. Upanishads explain at great lengths the creation of cosmos and the coming about of the matter from Mahat. Upanishads say the Brahman created the world out of Maya. Some people interpret Maya as an illusion and some as matter.
The reasons given by vishistadvaitins for considering the world is real are:
•Vedas describe Brahman as: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born, by whom all these beings live, in whom all these beings rest, after death.
•Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So, how can the world, which has evolved from Brahman, be unreal?
•Brahman is also instrumental cause of this world, he creates the world. So, how can a thing, which has been created by Brahman, be unreal?
For Ramanuja, however, maya is real and is the plurality of attributes which are manifested by Brahman. Maya is the way in which Brahman is manifested in the phenomenal world.
3) Dvaitins believe that the world is real and the manifest world is real and eternal too, unlike Shankara’s world which is Maya. Dvaitins subscribe to five eternal differences in relationship between jiva-atman, Brahman and the world.
The differences are:
•between Brahman and the individual soul
•between soul and matter
•between one soul and another soul
•between the soul and matter
•between one piece of matter and another.
This is the important distinction between Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.People in R%26amp;S section often use the word illusion, false or unreal – how do we define it?
Right. Illusion is false perception,false and unreal is not true to 'fact'! Unreal has no existence in reality, it is only the construct of the mind which itself is a myth as U.G.Krishnamurthy calls it: Mind is a Myth. Mirror reflect reality, often distorts it too(medium effect), but what is in the mirror is not real and yet it reflect what is out there.Mirror reflection can not be said as stemming from the real, poor 'real' has no role in it! Keeping the mirror/mind clean, pure,highly transparent alone would resolve the so called dichotomy posed in your question as, then, the reality is 'seen' as it is. Till then, R%26amp;S, people and the world keep on throwing myths of words like illusion , false and unreal!!
The answer given by C. Sri Vidya Rajagopalan is a very good one. I feel foolish in try to give my own answer but i will try.
Reality is analogue but our perception of reality is digital. We name and label things to put them in box's. these symbols of the world around us are the illusion. By trying to classify everything our simplification means we do see the totality of it. We then begin seeing the world in terms of our mental symbols thus mistaking the map for the terrain. This is the way we change reality into illusion.
real is the root of unreal
As in Dream when there are objects created and perceived, and in reality these objects does not exist. Similarly it is said about the Reality or Soul which is defined as Pure Consciousness.
I have read a story where Lord Shiva teaches Sage Vashista about the nature of Reality, there he says that this Pure Consciousness comes under delusion that is knower and that there is a object of knowledge. Then from that comes everything such as mind, ego etc etc.
A Rope may seem like a snake to a deluded, but when he knows the truth then there is only rope but no snake.
That which is false is usually an imitation of that which is real. False teachers take the real thing and add some of their own false teachings to it. In the process of adding these lies, it is made counterfeit. (The religious cults).
It is something like rat poison. Rat poison is made up of 90% good food, but the 10% poison is enough to kill the rat.
In oder to protect oneself from these counterfeit teachings, we must study and know the truth.
Bankers are not taught the study of counterfiet money. They are taught the details of the real thing. Then they can identify that which is counterfeit.
Illusion is something which does not exist permanently.It keeps changing.At first whatever we see is real for us.Once we come to know the truth we know that is not real.
Any thing we see in full conscious, that is observing from the root, everything is unreal.
Because we find the unreal,we search for the real.
The real is something which has the potential of the unreal.
It is a dyssynchronicity in sense perception and the thing in its self. Inaccurate sense perception is partly corrected in stereoscopic sense systems, increasing probability for predictable triangulation for object placement. You notice all sense systems have symmetry. That is for enhancement for synchronistic subsystem sense agents so that multiple sensing for one thing checks for errors in a things relations to other things, knowing what a thing is not enhances our knowledge derived immediately from sense impression of the thing its self. Having more than one affirms the others in their synchronicity (same timeness). A loss of time sense equals loss of real sense and the relativity for space perception.
The same way that being illiterate derives from being literate
Shanky, i love this question...although i feel inadequate to answer it. C. Sri Vidya Rajagopalan has introduced a lifetime's information to chew upon...and while i reel from attempted consumption of that information, i also feel an ';opening'; taking place that absorbs, sifts, and accepts ';allness and nothingness,'; ';limitation and infinity,'; ';temporariness and eternity.'; In other words, everything that is or ever was or ever will be is contained in Source/God/All That Is. Eras and individuals have received revelations, that have'; informed'; them, and off-shoots or branches of interpretation have ';manifested,'; from them. i see the metaphor of Source reducting (my own made up word, apparently, but none other will do to illustrate ';reduction';) or ';stepping down'; Its unknowability to knowable (though perhaps, only partially knowable) increments, much as the Power Station must step down through transformers its vast electrical energy for use by householders. The small amount of electricity we receive through the outlets in our houses does not invalidate its greater source, nor is it, therefore, an illusion, false, or unreal. Yet, these are the words we have chosen to designate separation from source/Source, having to rely on the limitations of language. We cannot say that Real/Source/Power Station does not exist merely because we are focused on It/It/its lesser aspect as unreal/source/electrical outlet. We struggle to differentiate this from That, and in doing so find language awkward and incapable of speaking Truth. We could as easily say ';low,'; as opposed to ';High';, or ';here'; as opposed to ';There'; in our attempt to show separateness from source/Source. So, technically, none of these word choices are perfect or pure; and they do focus on separation rather than oneness/Oneness (the containment of the ';lesser'; within the ';greater';). i am struggling right now to select from inadequate and misleading pointers to that which i am trying to say...it cannot be done. So, while it is true that nothing unreal can stem from the Real, it is our human way to see only the finite. i am confident that your point is well taken by all readers. However, what's a human to do...until we are ';realized,'; we are limited in perception and experience.
i am Sirius
Is ';lying'; only defined as ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';, or... ?
Is ';lying'; only defined as ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';, or is the act of ';inadvertently expressing an untruth'; also considered ';lying';?Is ';lying'; only defined as ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';, or... ?
I would say ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';.
There is a difference between stupidity and dishonesty.
_()_Is ';lying'; only defined as ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';, or... ?
You describe active lying by commission, which shouldn't include inadvertent errors, but many times people more passively lie by omission, too. Identifying deliberate intent to deceive places guilt on someone, which can be useful in a just society, but trying to identify a true mistake as intentional is merely an attempt to shame someone.
I've always felt like lying is purposefully providing information that you know to be untrue, or that you don't know is true. Though it isn't techinically lying, I do still believe it is wrong to withhold the truth, distort the truths or to only give half truths. It is only right to give ';the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'; Gov. did pretty good in covering all the bases there.
Lying has to be intentional. Saying something false just because you don't know the truth of the matter isn't lying. I mean, consider that Isaac Newton said that acceleration is equal to net force divided by mass; Einstein later showed that that wasn't the case, so does that mean Newton's statement was a lie? No, of course not.
Yes. The commandment is
Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exd 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Deu 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Basically don't lie on people.
The former.
'Inadvertently expressing an untruth' is the same as 'being mistaken'.
In order to tell a lie you have to be aware that it's a lie.
i think the first is more accurate
the second one has the word 'inadvertently' to me that means something like accidentally...if it's truly an accidental expression then i don't think that's lying
Depends on who you ask. I would say lying is the former, saying something that is not so. If you 'forget' to tell them, it's not lying.
depending I mean if they ask you to say the whole truth and nothing but the truth than you told only part of it than it's a lie. But as your saying I'd say yes.
I think it's just deliberately providing false information because people choose to lie it's not like they are forced to.
I think it has to be intentional. Inadvertently expressing an untruth just makes you full of crap.
Both. (The first one is for one's 'motives', and the second one actually ';Believes'; in their lies and is ignorant about real Truth.)
To ';lie'; must involve intent, otherwise it's just ignorance. Thanks for asking.
It is Either
A. All of the Above
B. None of the Above
C. Or Some of the above
I think a lie is a lie whether one planned to lie or not.
Nope, some people lie just cause they get a kick out of it.
The people that have lied to me do it to deceive. I hate liars.
Lying is not telling the truth.
It's more like, acting.
I like to think of it as ENHANCING the TRUTH!!!
yes
both
Both are lies.
If you're talking about what will God judge, God judges the heart(motivations).
I would say ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';.
There is a difference between stupidity and dishonesty.
_()_Is ';lying'; only defined as ';deliberately providing false information with the intent to deceive';, or... ?
You describe active lying by commission, which shouldn't include inadvertent errors, but many times people more passively lie by omission, too. Identifying deliberate intent to deceive places guilt on someone, which can be useful in a just society, but trying to identify a true mistake as intentional is merely an attempt to shame someone.
I've always felt like lying is purposefully providing information that you know to be untrue, or that you don't know is true. Though it isn't techinically lying, I do still believe it is wrong to withhold the truth, distort the truths or to only give half truths. It is only right to give ';the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'; Gov. did pretty good in covering all the bases there.
Lying has to be intentional. Saying something false just because you don't know the truth of the matter isn't lying. I mean, consider that Isaac Newton said that acceleration is equal to net force divided by mass; Einstein later showed that that wasn't the case, so does that mean Newton's statement was a lie? No, of course not.
Yes. The commandment is
Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exd 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Deu 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Basically don't lie on people.
The former.
'Inadvertently expressing an untruth' is the same as 'being mistaken'.
In order to tell a lie you have to be aware that it's a lie.
i think the first is more accurate
the second one has the word 'inadvertently' to me that means something like accidentally...if it's truly an accidental expression then i don't think that's lying
Depends on who you ask. I would say lying is the former, saying something that is not so. If you 'forget' to tell them, it's not lying.
depending I mean if they ask you to say the whole truth and nothing but the truth than you told only part of it than it's a lie. But as your saying I'd say yes.
I think it's just deliberately providing false information because people choose to lie it's not like they are forced to.
I think it has to be intentional. Inadvertently expressing an untruth just makes you full of crap.
Both. (The first one is for one's 'motives', and the second one actually ';Believes'; in their lies and is ignorant about real Truth.)
To ';lie'; must involve intent, otherwise it's just ignorance. Thanks for asking.
It is Either
A. All of the Above
B. None of the Above
C. Or Some of the above
I think a lie is a lie whether one planned to lie or not.
Nope, some people lie just cause they get a kick out of it.
The people that have lied to me do it to deceive. I hate liars.
Lying is not telling the truth.
It's more like, acting.
I like to think of it as ENHANCING the TRUTH!!!
yes
both
Both are lies.
If you're talking about what will God judge, God judges the heart(motivations).
True or False: The Constitutional amendment to define marriage shamefully political and sinfully divisive.?
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, the only practicing minister in Congress
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledge鈥?/a>True or False: The Constitutional amendment to define marriage shamefully political and sinfully divisive.?
True. The amendment is shameful and is driven by political motivations, not for the good of the country.True or False: The Constitutional amendment to define marriage shamefully political and sinfully divisive.?
The constitution of the United States is the document that serves as the foundation to our fragile nation. In many respects it should be considered a sacred document.
It should not be altered to serve the election year whims of a certain party. It should be reserved for changes to our legal system that the founders were unable to foresee.
While many proponents of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would say this is a circumstance that the founders could never envision,
I would argue that the reasoning behind the amendment is a political scheme or gimmick to get the support of voters and not a groundbreaking quest to protect anyone's rights. It is tantamount to writing a form of discrimination into the foundation of the country and sets a terrible precedent.
We should just outlaw marriage altogether. Would save a lot of money on divorces and stuff people don't really need.
Nobody really likes being married anyway. Most men just tolerate for sex and that is pretty pitiful considering they become wimps and house husbands for their wives.
False! We already have enough fake marriages in this country to add another vehicle for it. If this law passes every single guy who has good corporate health care will be marrying his room mate that doesn't. Not to mention the millions of people who will be brought into this country as ';wives'; just to beat immigration. If gays want to get married one should just get a sex change and be done with it already!
Sinfully divisive as you'll find by the responses you will receive.
I love how Christians talk about how sacred the institution of marriage is.
Marriage started out as a property arrangement to replace former methods of genetic dispersal, namely pillaging and raping the neighboring tribe's women. We became more ';civilized'; when we sold our women rather than allow them to be stolen. This form of slavery evolved into marriage.
The amendment would be divisive, so ';True'; is my answer
False, I attend church every Sunday and I have no problem with making a marriage amendment.
FALSE!!!!
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledge鈥?/a>True or False: The Constitutional amendment to define marriage shamefully political and sinfully divisive.?
True. The amendment is shameful and is driven by political motivations, not for the good of the country.True or False: The Constitutional amendment to define marriage shamefully political and sinfully divisive.?
The constitution of the United States is the document that serves as the foundation to our fragile nation. In many respects it should be considered a sacred document.
Report Abuse
It should not be altered to serve the election year whims of a certain party. It should be reserved for changes to our legal system that the founders were unable to foresee.
Report Abuse
While many proponents of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would say this is a circumstance that the founders could never envision,
Report Abuse
I would argue that the reasoning behind the amendment is a political scheme or gimmick to get the support of voters and not a groundbreaking quest to protect anyone's rights. It is tantamount to writing a form of discrimination into the foundation of the country and sets a terrible precedent.
Report Abuse
We should just outlaw marriage altogether. Would save a lot of money on divorces and stuff people don't really need.
Nobody really likes being married anyway. Most men just tolerate for sex and that is pretty pitiful considering they become wimps and house husbands for their wives.
False! We already have enough fake marriages in this country to add another vehicle for it. If this law passes every single guy who has good corporate health care will be marrying his room mate that doesn't. Not to mention the millions of people who will be brought into this country as ';wives'; just to beat immigration. If gays want to get married one should just get a sex change and be done with it already!
Sinfully divisive as you'll find by the responses you will receive.
I love how Christians talk about how sacred the institution of marriage is.
Marriage started out as a property arrangement to replace former methods of genetic dispersal, namely pillaging and raping the neighboring tribe's women. We became more ';civilized'; when we sold our women rather than allow them to be stolen. This form of slavery evolved into marriage.
The amendment would be divisive, so ';True'; is my answer
False, I attend church every Sunday and I have no problem with making a marriage amendment.
FALSE!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)