"i keep my documents hidden" why we use "hidden" here instead of 'hide'?
I hide my documents. (an explination of an action you take ) I hid my documents. ( something you did ) I keep my documents hidden. (something you do) I keep my documents hide is an incorrect use of the word because the documents can not hide themselves you would have to hide them so then they would be hidden. 'People sleep with eyes open' is something one would take as a warning to a group of people because of very possible danger. Sleeping with your eyes opened is not good because it could dry your eyes out if you do it in reality and that could cause blindness, laugh, not good especially if there is danger.
Why do people question the Reality of Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost?
Because it has never been explained in a way that could be understood by anyone who will not take a very flimsy explaination. Exactly how can three people actually be only one ? How can a father be his own son ? Why is God refered to as the father, when the apostles creed says, " Conceived by the ghost "? That makes the ghost the father. Explain. The church says "One God in three persons ". What are or is, persons. The plural of person is people. The preamble does not say, " We the persons etc,etc ". Linclon did not say," Of the persons, for the persons, by the persons ". What's being hidden ? Why isn't plain English used ? So now you know why I question the reality of Jesus and the others, or if they're all one, I should say IT.
How would you defend theism and your beliefs aginst these video's points?
I’m not interested in defending theism (I’m not theist), but there are two mains problem with this guy’s argument:He is attributing qualities to religion that are true of any kind of belief system. Any belief system — religion; fascism, democracy, socialism; scientism or skepticism; etc — can promote violence, intolerance, a master-slave mentality, and can make children feel bad about themselves.He is creating a straw man argument. Religion does not inevitably cause children to be afraid of imaginary concepts, or to stop looking for answers, or to be unable to think rationally and logically.Like many people who argue against religion this guy has equated religion with violent fundamentalism, as though no form of religion exists which isn't prone to irrational fits of terrorism. Of course, violent fundamentalists are a tiny minority of religious adherents in any faith; the bulk of religious practitioners split between moderate conservatives and moderate liberals, both of whom are quite reasonable. In fact, most of the great philosophers of all societies came from moderate religious backgrounds, and were largely respected by both the members and the leaderships of their respective faiths. But observations like that do not fit within this guy’s worldview, so he simply filters them out and talks solely about horrible fundamentalists.Trust me: secular leaders like Stalin and Hilter have done more horrific violence to the world than violent religious fanatics ever have.This guy makes a set of disturbingly huge category errors in the first two minutes of his speech, and it goes on from there.
What is the difference between believers' and unbelievers' understanding of scripture? The "holy spirit" either.......?
The Bible itself gives you the answer you seek. I merely quote it here: "For the word of God is living and powerful. Sharper than any two-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and arrow; it judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." Hebrews 4:12-13 "To the faithful you show yourself faithful. To the blameless you show yourself blameless. To the pure you show yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd. You save the humble but your eyes are on the haughty to bring them low." 2 Samuel 22:26-28 That is why God's word, the scriptures, are taken differently by different people. The Holy Spirit applies the truth of scripture to the humble. But those who would judge it are simultaneously judged by the Holy Spirit, who makes the proud see it as crooked or who only pick and choose what they fancy out of it, like a pick-and-mix selection in a candy store. Then they wonder why others who make their own pick-and-mix understand it differently! It's almost funny.
Mormons: What did the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie imply when he wrote these words?
“From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement whereunder the blood of apostates and others was shed by the Church as an atonement for their sins... there is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught.... “But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins.” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 92 Was the Apostle undermining the sufficiently of the blood of Christ in the Atonement? And what kind of sins would require the blood of the persons who committed the act? That seems a bit odd. And do you believe the doctrine of Blood Atonement continue today. Consider this quote by Keith Norman, Mormon scholar, who made reference to the above statement: “Well, if I understand Elder McConkie [in the above quote], he was saying that, although earlier Church leader’s never believed, preached, or practiced blood atonement, we actually do believe in it and would practice it if we had the legal and political power to do so. (Even thought we didn’t when Brigham Young presided over the theocratic territory of Deseret.)”
Why do we try to hide our sin from God, and from others?
You probably know that what you’re doing is wrong. You may even suffer the pangs of a guilty conscience. (Romans 2:15) However, you may be afraid of revealing your wrongdoing because of embarrassment and/or the consequences of your actions. No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. - Hebrews 12:11 Israelites tried to get away with it too. However, the prophet Isaiah warned them: “Woe to those who are going very deep in concealing counsel from Jehovah himself, and whose deeds have occurred in a dark place, while they say: ‘Who is seeing us, and who is knowing of us?’” (Isaiah 29:15) The Israelites forgot that God saw their deeds. In due time he called them to account for their errors. There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight,” says Hebrews 4:13, “but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.” What, then, is the use of hiding? Remember, you can’t appease God by simply putting on a show of devotion when you attend religious meetings. Jehovah knows when people ‘honor him with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from him.’—Mark 7:6.
Is the UI of Quora considered not good enough to match its content quality? How could it be improved?
Yes. Quora community survives despite Quora's UI not because of it. I like the content and the process (moderation, BNBR) that is so valuable here. The rest of it is meh. Quora has been in existence for over 5 years now and still they have not changed substantially for the better in UI/UX. Even basic requests take forever for the team to consider. Few foundation stuff:Discovery is outrageously hard. The home page feed is a big hit and miss. I like that they are now bringing some "Feed" categories in the left bar, but a long way to go. I really want to know what is the most interesting content out there. New user onboarding is a nightmare. I have brought a few thousand people on to the network and most find it bewildering and confusing. Simple suggestions to improve onboarding are ignored. Basic things are needlessly hidden. Why is the access to the question log and question asker so hard to reach? I get that you are deemphasizing the question askers, but a lot of questions are still personal & I want to know who the person is so that I can customize the response. Need APIs. As a product manager myself, I get that product development is hard. That's the reason you need to have APIs. People didn't wait for Twitter to give them great tools to derive value out of their feeds. They jumped on to the various clients powered by the API. Sure, Quora wanted to play safe for a couple of years, given some negative experience from their Facebook day. But, it's been 5 years now. Is this the pace you want to move? Don't Marc Bodnick and Adam D'Angelo realize that it's such a long wait for new product features that they should start opening up to the development community more. Let the community build discovery and feed management for you. Blogs have been a stepchild. I can't figure out why they treat the blogs so rubbishly. Plenty of basic stuff like seamless integration between answers and posts [for the starters, there should not be two upvote buttons - one for the post and another for the answer] is ignored. Blogs can be a very powerful way to use the content on Quora and I found dozens of different uses for it. Search sucks, period. I don't complain much about Quora and I don't remember ever posting on Rage Against Quora. But, the very slow nature of their product development is irritating me as a user. They are holding me merely by the power of network effects and not by the power of their features.
Is the assertion “No one should force their beliefs on others” ironic?
It is not ironic. Everyone forces their beliefs on others. As I have said elsewhere, reality, like money, like language, like anything is a negotiated commodity. By having a belief, you have automatically decided to bargain with other people concerning their beliefs. Even if you never say a word, your behavior is sufficient a challenge to their beliefs. Your behavior constrains their behavior. This is fundamental behavioral psychology. It can be forcing even if you never act on on your belief or even if you decide never to have a belief. That’s how tai chi push hands works. Therefore, your beliefs, no matter how closely or privately held, are automatically forcing on your environment and on others. What is ironic is the ignorance latent in the statement “No one should force their beliefs on others”. Further more as Josh Burns stated, that statement is itself a forcing belief.So so. If then my beliefs are always going to impose and impinge on the beliefs of others, what then should I do? I should not go around bumbling and fumbling in a disordered manner. I should be careful to channel the inevitable by choosing what I will, what I will say and what I will do and when. I should be humble but I should not engage in the wishful thinking that somehow I am not being forceful or that I can ever be anything but forceful. Instead, I should say, “I am being forceful and here is why.” In other words, I should become an apologist. Not someone who apologizes for their belief but one who understands that he is being forceful and inevitably so and out of respect would like explain why.Will I be offensive to some. Of course. Will I be accepted by some. Of course. This is life. Life is conflict and struggle. Our only choice is how we choose to struggle and why.Thank you for asking this question. In answering, I have learned something.