Dravin

Actually my understanding is that to be considered legally clergy you need to have completed schooling in some countries. Seminary counts as schooling for those purposes. That said it's not like I got that 'knowledge' from an official source, and I'm not sure how important it is that our missionaries be considered clergy for legal purposes.

Behold the face of evil!

While this event didn't occur during Christ's earthly ministry I think this scripture is relevant to your thought Vort:
To our knowledge Enos had no physical malady that he sought relief from. Then what relief is it he sought? He sought spiritual relief.

The problem is you are mocking people for accepting the reports of others. Have you personally observed oppression of women in Pakistan or some such? Something tells me that despite that you'd have no problem stating, based on the reports of others, first hand witnesses in cases, that said nation contains oppression of women. So basically the problem is you are mocking others (your eye rolling) for something you yourself do, you just aren't doing it here as it pertains to one particular subject.
Considering the extreme unlikelihood of you personally verifying every scrap of information you've ever made a decision base in part or in whole on I find it highly unlikely you don't believe in doing such. Your position really does boil down to, "If I've not seen Lichtenstein for myself it is unreasonable to read a map of Europe and state that Europe contains that country."
I don't demand or expect you to agree that the musical is blasphemous. Just not roll your eyes at people who dare believe a report of content.
They are all things that one has (presumably) not confirmed personally (aka seen themselves) yet I doubt you'd take issue with people for believing President Obama about OBL, a review that Debbie Does Dallas contains sex acts, or believing the information found on an atlas that Alaska contains the town of Bethel.

Patient: What about my wife and kids?
Dr. Vort: *pause* Yes...

I agree, safety comes before moving.

The Wikipedia article seems fairly decent if you want a brief overview of what the Talmud is (as opposed to a detailed examination of what it teaches, that's a somewhat different subject). 
 
 
​The Talmud is the oral traditions of rabbinical Judaism. Simply knowing that Jesus was Jewish doesn't tell us to what extent he agreed with it, for instance the Sadducees were Jewish but rejected the Talmud. Speaking of the modern day, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews don't accept it as authoritative. 

Qur'an: القرآن
Qumran:قمران‎, though I think the location is more properly Khirbet Qumran: خربة قمران‎
Looking at it in Arabic I'm not sure if it is one letter or not, the full name certainly is more than one letter different. And the one letter off in English you note only works if Qur'an is used to transliterate and not Koran. The Qur'an means "the recitation", I can't seem to find a meaning translation for Khirbet Qumran.
Note that traditionally the receipt of the Qur'an by Mohammad is around Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Khirbet Qumran is quite some distance away. And even if there is a similarity of meaning or word roots, it doesn't necessarily mean there is a connection of substance. Just like a bibliography and the Bible aren't terribly connected. Also one letter can mean a lot, fake versus fate for example .
Is there something about the Essenes that leads you to think of a connection between them and Islam?

The Wikipedia article seems fairly decent if you want a brief overview of what the Talmud is (as opposed to a detailed examination of what it teaches, that's a somewhat different subject). 
 
 
​The Talmud is the oral traditions of rabbinical Judaism. Simply knowing that Jesus was Jewish doesn't tell us to what extent he agreed with it, for instance the Sadducees were Jewish but rejected the Talmud. Speaking of the modern day, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews don't accept it as authoritative. 

It's fine, you explained my question well enough for my purposes. Primarily one talks GI when talking about sugars and fructose is the best within that context, your response clarified it's not a GI index issue but something else. With what you supplied I was able to dig up this: Is fructose bad for you? - Harvard Health Publications
Which actually references the author of the video you linked to (it also links to the same video).

Are you saying there aren't Star Trek style teleporters for spirits in Heaven? Dang.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Bleh.

Ahem: Most fallacies in the fewest number of words
Seatbelt laws are evil:
Everyone knows seatbelt laws are evil except you because you are a communist who knows seat belt laws will let you take over the world and if you don't believe me I'll beat you up!
That single sentence had:
Appeal to emotion, ad hominem attack, Argumentum ad baculum, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Spite, Appeal to motive, Argumentum ad Populum, Slippery Slope!

You know what you experienced best, but fear and anxiety don't sound like the spirit or a stupor of thought to me.

You'll find "I'm not religious" used by atheists, agnostics, and even theists or spiritualists who mean it to indicate they don't adhere to a defined or organized religion. Heck, I've heard those words uttered by self-professed Christians. What people mean by the phrase is varied.

I've posted this elsewhere.  My purpose here, amongst friends who also believe in the importance of seeking to convert people to faith, is to discuss experiences, or reactions we've had.

If you really want to delve into an atheist or agnostic mindset I suggest that this board isn't a very good place for it. This board isn't really awash in atheists or agnostics and those who are here are mindful of the faith based nature of the board and thus are unlikely to engage with any boldness. This is a faith promoting board and an atheist or agnostic response to your questions aren't faith promoting. The Straight Dope Message Board, the Great Debates sub-forum, would be a wonderful place to get honest responses that aren't concerned with the nature of the board they are responding on and there are many atheists and agnostics there. There is also a fair number of religious individuals but the board does lean towards the atheist/agnostic as far as the membership numbers are concerned. If you wanted more neutral territory (as even I would classify the SDMB as being on the antagonistic side as far as religion is concerned) I bet with sufficient effort you could probably find a board with a more even split/neutral attitude to ask your question on.

You'll find "I'm not religious" used by atheists, agnostics, and even theists or spiritualists who mean it to indicate they don't adhere to a defined or organized religion. Heck, I've heard those words uttered by self-professed Christians. What people mean by the phrase is varied.

That's ridiculous! How on earth would someone shouting "No" ruin conference. Your life has to be pretty dull for that to be a serious concern.
 
M.

Your quote sounds like a reference to an address given by Boyd K. Packer entitled The Mantle is Far, Far, Greater Than the Intellect. Relevant quote below: 

I find that generally when people feel better about the idea of a gun free environment it's because they fear someone doing something stupid with a (legally present) gun over someone intentionally, and illegally, bringing in a gun to cause murder and mayhem. One can of course debate if the weighting of fears is grounded in the statistics (fears being very subjective things it won't matter for some people), but no belief in signs preventing someone intent on murder and mayhem using a gun from entering the premises are required to feel as Bini does. Ultimately she'll have to explain her particular situation.

According the Mayor:  From: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/March/City-Under-Fire-for-Requiring-Church-Business-Licenses/ Going to the Lake Worth Municipal website does appear to have it set-up as a dual form, at least it does mention Use & Occupancy ( https://www.lakeworth.org/business/business-tax/ ). That might explain some church seeing the form and complaining but it doesn't really explain the investigation. Even if it was intended to be an investigation into if safety and maximum occupancy requirements were being met the snippets of the report available online don't make it sound like that at all. Which makes it sound like someone or someones decided to do a little axe grinding. As far as the general question instead of the specific incident: I'm comfortable with for profit business ventures of churches requiring a license if a secular one would as well, but I'm not comfortable with requiring some sort of church license (be it a unique to churches license or requiring them to get a business license). I am okay with buildings that hold large regular public to semi-public meetings being required to meet certain safety requirements such as maximum occupancy and sufficient points of egress in case of emergency. That'd be something that applies to the building though not the church itself.

God does not play Monopoly with the universe.

Be the strange you wish to see in the world.

Be the strange you wish to see in the world.