marbledog

I mean one of these: http://chocolatefantasies.com/religious.htm.

I'm not 100% clear on the whole "edible idolatry" issue, so help me out, here. Do you bite into it, or let it melt in your mouth?

BTW: This is the only candy, to my knowledge, that ever inspired a Tom Waits song. If you haven't heard the greatest song ever made, you can listen to it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5kHx1itU8c&feature...

I'm starting a small business, and I would like to offer financing to my customers, but I'm unsure of how to calculate monthly finance charges based on APR.

For instance, if I financed $700 at 20% APR over 24 months, how would I calculate a customer's monthly bill?

Any help is appreciated! Thanks.

...is Aretha Franklin's voice. It's just so RIGHT.

Anyone else experience something similar?

... and bananas are the atheist's nightmare, does this mean that monkeys are dreadfully afraid of evolving into atheists?

Sorry... I just discovered Shiner Black Lager. Prost!

I read a recent news article (http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/chesapeake-police-... that brought up a great probability problem. I just can't figure it out.

The police department in Chesapeake, Virginia holds a policy exam for its officers. The thirty top scorers on the exam are made eligible for promotion. This year, the city of Chesapeake has considered invalidating the results of the exam, because all of the top thirty scorers were white males. The city has contracted an analyst to determine if the exam was biased against minorities and women.

Here's the problem... Of the 144 candidates who took the exam, 135 were white men. Only nine of the examinees were either women or racial minorities.

Assuming that all other things are equal, how many women or minorities should we expect to be in the top thirty, on average? Also, what is the probability of the actual outcome (ie. that all thirty top candidates would be white men)?

Any help at all would be appreciated, but anyone who can tell me HOW to work this kind of problem gets ten points.

Thanks!

This is for a class project, so serious answers only, please. THX.

I came here to have a sip of bourbon after a stressful day at work, and everyone is asking legitimate, thoughtful, polite, and intelligent questions. Not one drink-worthy query in the bunch!

Can't someone help a brother out, here?

In the US, three children in the past five months have died from forgoing conventional medical care in favor of prayer. If these kids had died from, say, epilectic seizures caused by video games, there would be mass media focus and a nationwide initiative to combat the problem.

As it is, these stories barely made national news. Why aren't we up in arms over this? What can we do to protect these kids?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744614

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20...

Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-25 both relate a similar story. Jesus is hungry and sees a fig tree. He approaches the tree and finds it bare of figs. He is apparently annoyed at this fact, so he curses the tree to never bear fruit again, at which point it withers up and dies.

Although I am not a believer, I have a pretty good grasp of the intent of most biblical stories. This one I just don't get. If Jesus had the power to kill the tree with words, he surely could have just talked it into giving him some figs. What kind of lesson is being taught here?

I'm sincerely not trying to cause trouble or poke fun at anyone. I would just like to hear some explanations for this story.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

This quote does not actually appear in the Bible, but it is derived from similar proverbs. I have heard many Christians interpret the term "rod" as "guidance" or "discipline". The actual biblical phrases, however, are very unambiguous.

Proverbs 23:13-14, KJV

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

It seems to me that the verse in question is quite explicit and needs no interpretation. I certainly don't advocate beating children with sticks, but I don't understand how people interpret, "Thou shalt beat him with the rod" as "Provide guidance".

Could anyone please explain these interpretations? Thanks in advance for your answers.

I seem to have thought myself into a corner. Help me out, here.

Based on previous questions, most people (myself included) seem to be ok with religious animal sacrifice, so long as it's done in a humane manner. Most people (myself included) also seem to believe that a person should be allowed to choose suicide, provided that it can be substantiated that the person is sane.

Combining these concepts, should it be legal to sacrifice a human for religious purposes, assuming that they're ok with it? If no, why not? Should we automatically assume that anyone willing to die for their religious beliefs is insane? That doesn't seem right.

I honestly don't know what to think about this. I find the concept of human sacrifice repugnant, but I can't think of a justifiable reason to outlaw it if the sacrifice is willing.

Any thoughts?

Conventional medical wisdom holds that the desire to end one's own life is pathological in and of itself. Thus, any person who wishes to end their own life must suffer from metal illness.

Should we cast skepticism on this claim? Some seemingly rational people decide to die for wholly personal and pragmatic reasons. Martyrs and heros choose to die for what they believe to be the greater good.

Should we repect the autonomy and self-determination of these people, or should we assume that suicidal intent must be driven by mental illness? How do we tell the difference?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of the US heard the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. the City of Hialeah, Florida.

The city had passed several ordinances prohibiting ritual animal sacrifice. A Santeria church sued the city, claiming impingment on their 1st Amendment rights. The court found for the church, deciding that the city has the right to outlaw animal slaughter, but that it does not have the right to pass laws that specifically target religious practices. Had they designed the law to outlaw all unlicensed animal slaughter, it would have stood in court.

Your thoughts?

I keep hearing arguments that state, "Mutations can only decrease genetic information" or "Evolution requires an increase in genetic information."

I'm really unclear on how to quantify genetic information in order to measure an increase or decrease. I understand that information can be measured in terms of the total number of base pairs in a DNA molecule, but that number can increase or decrease easily, so you must mean something different.

How can we measure the quantity of genetic information in a particular organism? Examples would be great, but any clarification would be helpful.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

There exists an enormous market for religious literature, but is there really a substantial market for skepticism about religion? I'm nearly finished with a skeptical handbook on Christian apologetics, but I'm concerned that there is no demand for such work.

I know that Dawkins and Hitchens have made a gajillion dollars from their books, but I'm not a world-reknowned biologist or journalist. Are people really willing to spend money on skepticism?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

I'm a published article author, and I'm nearly finished with a short non-fiction book. Does anyone have any good advice on writing a query letter or finding representation? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Many times, I have heard Creationists claim that random mutation cannot produce an increase in genetic information. Sadly, I have never heard anyone qualify what would constitute such an increase or suggest a method by which we could measure it.

Could anyone please define these terms for me? Examples (real or hypothetical) would be nice.

Please note that I'm not trying to disparage anyone's ideas, here. Everyone is entitled to their belief. I'm simply confused about exactly what Creationists mean when they use this argument.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I've heard it said that Bushmills is "Protestant whiskey". As a recovering Catholic, should I switch brands? Will my beloved Jameson cause me to relapse and start spouting novenas?

I could really use some guidance, here. Thanks.

I'm really interested in Christian perspectives on this. Will this influence your vote?

Mike Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister who is running for President of the United States. He is currently tied for the Republican nomination.

Part of the Southern Baptist Convention's position on marriage states: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp

When the SBC released this position, Huckabee, along with other pastors, took out a full-page ad in USA Today stating, in part, "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=2510

So... you're driving down a lonely road one evening, scanning through the local radio stations for something to keep you awake. To your surprise, your "seek" button finds a station identified as "KHEL 66.6FM -- The #1 radio station in Hell and the surrounding nether-regions."

What's on the top ten list?