Sever Definition

Is severing a can of "Great Stuff" expanding foam in someones house consistent with the definition of bombing?


You need to tell people what state you're in. While I doubt any state defines "bombing," they likely all define what a bomb or other destructive device is. In California, that definition can be found in section 12301 of the Penal Code, available here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html And as I read it, the answer would be no.

Do you agree..?
English is messed up even without slang and or jargon being thrown into the mix. Take for example the word cleave it can mean both: to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to). or to cut off; sever: could these two definitions be more opposite? No wonder it is such a hard languange to learn. lot of the spelling rules are also not consistent like with the word "pretty" for example . Phonics rules are that the "e" in this word should be a short sound. This is not true for the letter "e" at all. IN this word, the letter "e" has the sound of the short "i". Why not spell this word "pritty" as it is pronounced? This is just one such example and then you have all of the silent sounds. What's the real deal with all of that ? Because Hindi and Telugu languages are phonetic not English. Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation ...

Yes People who speak English as their first language are not necessarily aware which sound for A they are using when they use or read a word they have known . Of course, they are literate, whether they can explain the phonics system or not, because literate means capable of reading. I feel bad for anyone who is trying to learn English, since there are so many variations among the vowel sounds and diphthongs. Spellings in english is hard...because so many words have extra letters that you don't need...like through...psycology.The fact that the spelling is far from phonetic - the same combinations of letters can stand for totally different words, like the "ough" in "tough", "though", "drought", etc. Its pronunciation, and all the words that sound the same but arent, like see and sea, red and read . It makes it hard to follow ppl sometimes, especially when accents are involved. In most words that end in "e", the vowel is long (says it's name) bake, take, fate, smite, home, phone. English is not as simple as it appears to be become it is a complicated admixture of several European languages, such as- Greek, Latin, French, German, English etc. Thus it possesses approximately 1000 000 words.

What is mischief?
Would your definition of causing mishief and corruption include terrorism? If so, what does the following quote say to you? "God has commanded humanity to avoid evil; he has forbidden immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder and bloodshed. Those who do not obey this command of God are walking in the steps of Satan, as it says in the verse above, and have adopted an attitude that God has clearly declared unlawful. Of the many verses that bear on this subject, here are only two: But as for those who break God's contract after it has been agreed and sever what God has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode. (Surat ar-Ra'd: 25) Seek the abode of the hereafter with what God has given you, without forgetting your portion of the world. And do good as God has been good to you. And do not seek to cause mischief on earth. God does not love mischief makers.' (Surat al-Qasas: 77) As we can see, God has forbidden every kind of mischievous acts in the religion of Islam including terrorism and violence, and condemned those who commit such deeds. A Muslim lends beauty to the world and improves it. Islam has not only forbidden terror and violence, but also even the slightest imposition of any idea on another human being. There is no compulsion in religion. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 256) So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe. (Surat al-Ghashiyah: 22) To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it, is against the spirit and essence of Islam. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur'an, but they never use compulsion. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege."

To me, mischief would be something done with malice; a source of annoyance that can escalate to severe harm inflicted on others, including torture, bloodshed, killing, and murder. You are correct in that Religion, per se, generally cannot compel a person to adhere to its precepts, rather it is up to the adherent to follow them according to his own volition, recognizance, and free will. Perhaps the key question that really begs to be answered is this: Why isn't there a PUBLIC OUTCRY or an outpouring of sentiments from good and devout Muslims and their leadership --from Muslim communities all over the world-- AGAINST those destructive and "mischievous elements" who misuse and abuse the Islam faith to further their own personal agenda or political cause?? Curious minds need to know... Peace be with you.

Has Christianity convinced atheists that no religion exists other than Christianity?
Atheists, you have severed your ties with Christianity, and I applaud you for it. But have you truly ended your search for God? Not all theories on God are absurd. Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy has the most no non-sense definition of God I have ever personally read about, not to mention the emotionally expressive and enlightening thought sof the Upanishads or Baghavad Gita is able to convince anyone that although God might be just a theory or concept to describe everything, it is at least interesting enough in my opinion to take considerable time and effort in learning, not to mention it gives you the added knowledge to rock the world of any other theological “guess.”

while they are constantly trying to make Christianity seem like the only religion .. it probably has worked on some I'm not sure I'm an atheist, i like the idea of gods--more then one for sure though here's where i stand, a god is like a battle standard. What it stands for is what you stand for, the qualities it represents is what you strive to master that's what a god is to me...and there's no reason not to have more then one lets see, the more standards you have the greater things you stand for..but here's where i might be wrong, Christians try to emulate god even when he causes most of the suffering on the planet http://funnyflash.com/movies/only_superhuman/ so I'm not sure if they see it as something like a tyrant and needs to be worshiped else killed or really do like violent crusades and plagues...look at it like that and its more of an evil cult!

Can you find me a pic. of these five words..? ?
Subject : English The five words are: 1. Encompass 2. Extricate 3. Modify 4. Recur 5. instill I need to find 5 pictures (1 for each) that maches their definition. The definition for each word is: Encompass-(v) 1. To enclose or encircle. 2. To include Extricate-(v) To free from a difficult or tangled situation. Modify- (v) 1. To make less extreme or sever. 2. To make changes in. Recur- (v) 1. To come up again or to happen again. 2. To come to mind again. Instill- (v) To introduce gradually in order to establish securely. The pictures can be from google. For EXAMPLE: Excrutiating- Very painful. Pic.: http://www.dreadcentral.com/img/news/oct06/saw3pic2.jpg That's an example. I need 5 pics matching each words definition.

Encompass- http://accel96.mettre-put-idata.over-blog.com/0/21/64/63/feet-encircle-9-pointed-grass-star.jpg or http://images.povcomp.com/entries/images/480/148_main.jpg Extricate- http://www.petadishoom.com/page3/images/John-new-ad-Full.jpg Modify- http://img2.timeinc.net/toh/i/a/solutions/fix-veneer-01.jpg Recur- http://www.billmyclients.com/images/features_recur.gif or just show a picture, then an arrow to the next picture, which is the same Instill- http://www.auriga-astronomy.com/62986main_Jim_glueing_strips_together.jpg Hope these work! :)

If god wanted to be known, he'd reveal himself to science empirically. Here is the incontrovertible proof?
This is a bit long, but if you follow it, you might for the first time understand the mindset of an atheist. The theist claims that god is real, and that god reveals himself in *some* way to any human being who truly wants to know him. If god allows himself to be known to all, than he must give humans a WAY to know him, and a way that ALL people are at least capable of. In other words, a god that wants to be heard (literally) couldn't create a species without ears and then expect to be heard. Assuming a person wants to know god, then all they need do is look for him using the method he's devised for us to know him, which according to theists is FAITH. But how do we actually know that ALL people have the capacity for faith? Faith is a unique intangible because it can't be proven in any empirical sense. Belief in that which cannot be proven is the very definition of faith. Therefore, nobody can know for CERTAIN if another person can or cannot experience faith. We can *assume* all people have the capacity for faith, but the fact is, unless you can trade brains with another person, you can never know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what they can, or cannot feel. It is entirely possible that many people are simply incapable of certain types of thought, beliefs or emotions, whether due to chemical imbalance, congenital brain damage, genetic aberration, injury, or a whole host of other things. For example, we know that if the corpus callosum is severed, a person can see an object with one eye, and not be able to say what it is even though he or she can write down what it is. Conversely, they can see it with the other eye, and tell you what the object is called, but they have no idea what the word they just said means. So this would mean that people could be born without the physical or mental capacity for faith, and therefore they could never know god, even if they desperately wanted to know him. It would be no different than a person born blind. No matter how much they wanted to see, they never would. Now I know the instinctive reaction many of you will have is that god can be "known" in ways besides faith, but if that's the case then where/what are these methods? Where are they explained? How do I engage in them? For people of science, we are like the blind person who would LOVE to see god, but cannot because our capacity for faith is nonexistent. It is no different than the blind person's lack of vision. You can tell us god exists the same as you can tell a blind person what blue looks like, but we will NEVER be able to know god as you do. But blind people don't give up. The workaround they have devised is to "see" with their sense of touch. They feel the objects directly, and know them directly. Eyes can be deceived, noises can be hallucinated, but there is no mistaking when you walk smack into a wall, or shake another person's hand. Touch is the ultimate equalizer for the blind person. Atheists don't give up either. Empiricism is to atheist what touch is to the blind person. It's the only way we can "see" the things that the faithful tell us are real. So if god refuses to reveal himself empirically, through the science we use in place of faith, then there is no denying that he has created humans who can never know him. Therefore we can not be held accountable for our lack of belief. magpies - please list these hoaxes, and if they have merit I'm sure atheist scientists will flock to re-examine these things. Citing Einsteins lack of belief is simply a logical fallacy (appeal to authority.) Einstein was intelligent, but also made some grand blunders (cosmological constant.) A person can be highly intelligent in one area, and ignorant in another. Anyway, intelligence alone proves nothing. If I was lost in the Arctic, the dumbest Eskimo is smarter than me. Vienna 1683 - My ENTIRE QUESTION is premised on the possible existence of god. If you're going to entertain a hypothesis, you have to allow for possibility that the hypothesis it is true. But a scientist can still be discerning when it comes to dismissing the more absurd claims. While the existence of Marvel comic book characters would be a great benefit to humanity, 90% of humans are not claiming they exist, and those who do think they exist are not harming the world with their beliefs. Therefore, there is no reason for me waste time and energy disproving said characters. Conclusively proving or disproving the existence of a god would, at the very least, help reduce the violence on our planet, so I think most open-minded atheists remain open to examining any evidence for such claims. The problem is, nobody ever produces any evidence. All we have are the claims.

I am continually impressed with how thoroughly and thoughtfully you address the principle divide (as I see it) b/n theists and atheists. Although, to be sure, the answers you've received from theists don't surprise me in the least. Another dimension that the theist crowd fails to get is that when they claim "atheists just refuse to accept faith," they're not only claiming to know what goes on inside our brains, they're also claiming to know what God is on about. God may well exist, and may well have produced humans with genetic or other types of "barriers" to faith, but if that's the case, God's the only one who knows. For a theist to claim they "know" that atheists are refusing to be faithful is a bit more than presumptive. It's an outright act of usurpation of God's sovereignity...isn't there an angel who fell for doing that?

severs disease?
what exactly is it(definition) I have it but im wondering what the definition (i had it since i was 7, now im 14) but I don't know how to explain it in words.............. in which my friends can understand because it does become painful at times and they can't/people can't understand what it is. Isn't it a extra tendon?(I have it so please don't give me advice, i just want a definition of what it is, and i dont need pity its not as bad as you read or research, just need to limit walking and no excess running, and resting...... ect.)

It's Sever's disease. Read what's at the links below and see if this helps you finds the words. You can't explain to others until you yourself understand. It's inflammation of the Achilles tendon. It can happen to athletic or active children during a growth spurt. http://www.familydoctor.org/handouts/158.html http://www.orthopedics.about.com/cs/pediatricsurgery/g/severs.htm

Do you agree..?
English is messed up even without slang and or jargon being thrown into the mix. Take for example the word cleave it can mean both: to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to). or to cut off; sever: could these two definitions be more opposite? No wonder it is such a hard languange to learn. lot of the spelling rules are also not consistent like with the word "pretty" for example . Phonics rules are that the "e" in this word should be a short sound. This is not true for the letter "e" at all. IN this word, the letter "e" has the sound of the short "i". Why not spell this word "pritty" as it is pronounced? This is just one such example and then you have all of the silent sounds. What's the real deal with all of that ? Because Hindi and Telugu languages are phonetic not English. Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation ...

our languge is mesed up reading the bible u find miss tranlations every were like say adams rib was used to creat eve in the hebrew it sayes his femonin dna in the englich and shoulda been said adams curve was taken to creat eve but thats why i have a good teacher that knows the berew ans tranlateds it back for me check it out if u want

Do you agree..?
English is messed up even without slang and or jargon being thrown into the mix. Take for example the word cleave it can mean both: to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to). or to cut off; sever: could these two definitions be more opposite? No wonder it is such a hard languange to learn. lot of the spelling rules are also not consistent like with the word "pretty" for example . Phonics rules are that the "e" in this word should be a short sound. This is not true for the letter "e" at all. IN this word, the letter "e" has the sound of the short "i". Why not spell this word "pritty" as it is pronounced? This is just one such example and then you have all of the silent sounds. What's the real deal with all of that ? Because Hindi and Telugu languages are phonetic not English. Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation ...

It is an interesting question but you have placed it in the wrong category - it is not a Family and Relationships question.

Do you agree..?
English is messed up even without slang and or jargon being thrown into the mix. Take for example the word cleave it can mean both: to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to). or to cut off; sever: could these two definitions be more opposite? No wonder it is such a hard languange to learn. lot of the spelling rules are also not consistent like with the word "pretty" for example . Phonics rules are that the "e" in this word should be a short sound. This is not true for the letter "e" at all. IN this word, the letter "e" has the sound of the short "i". Why not spell this word "pritty" as it is pronounced? This is just one such example and then you have all of the silent sounds. What's the real deal with all of that ? Because Hindi and Telugu languages are phonetic not English. Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation ...

Recipe for a disastrous language: Take some Gaelic (original language of the Celts) Add a little Latin (from the Roman invasion) Mix in a lot of Anglo-Saxon (invasions from what is now Denmark and northern Germany) Fold in a little French (1066 and all that) ...add borrowing from Greek due to Biblical and medical reasons and you have a cake that is tough to chew.