Eating Meat: What Changed?

Question: Adam wasn't allowed to eat meat. After the mabul (Flood) we were suddenly permitted to eat (Bereshit 9:3). What changed (ie what was the reason we weren't allowed to before, why are we allowed to now and what changed after the flood)?
Answer: The Midrash Agadah (attributed to Rabbi Mosheh HaDarshan), also quoted by Torah Temimah (note 66), answers that the reason why Adam wasn't allowed to eat meat was because before he sinned, everyone (including animals) was supposed to live forever. Therefore, he wasn't permitted to remove a life from the world. After his sin, it was determined that everyone (including animals) would eventually die. Therefore, from the time of Noach, he was allowed to kill an animal for his benefit since it would die anyway. The reason why it wasn't permitted to Adam immediately after his sin is so that a person doesn't rise in status as a result of his sin.
Answer: Rav Simcha Wasserman explains why after the Mabul he began to eat meat. R' Wasserman says this indicates the new lower level of Kedusha. The sin of that generation was stealing. After the Mabul, the world continued but on a new lower spiritual level.  Man now had to depend on another creature's flesh for survival, Mida K'neged Mida for the sin of stealing. The meat, representing heavy physicality, reminds us of where we are and where we could be. Although this represents a bleak picture for mankind, there is a tikkun, for everything in Judaism.  The potential for tumah has an equal potential for kedusha. When a righteous individual is nourished by food derived from an animal, the food is elevated immeasurably.
Answer: The Sforno says the world had been in a state of perpetual spring before the flood (hence lifespans in the hundreds of years), and thus the world was such that humans didn't need to eat meat to stay healthy.  After the flood, it was needed.
I believe it's Rav Kook who suggests that before the flood, people forgot that there was any distinction between them and animals; after the flood came the reminder, yes killing animals for food, no killing people.
Comment: " the world had been in a state of perpetual spring before the flood (hence lifespans in the hundreds of years), and thus the world was such that humans didn't need to eat meat to stay healthy" how one step follow the next? where is the Seforno? Furthermore, the alleged Seforno does not explain the need for a _prohibition_ of eating meant before.
Comment: Allowing meat so mankind could recover in a post-Flood world: Sforno's introduction to Genesis, paragraph "VeSiper Shlishit." http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9597&pgnum=8  Perpetual spring pre-Flood: Commentary to 8:22. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9597&pgnum=133 . I'm not aware if he addresses why it was previously prohibited.
Answer: Tosafot (Sanhedrin 56B) says that Adam HaRishon was able to eat meat that had died by itself he just was not able to kill the meat and eat it. However, if one of the limbs of the animal fell off by itself, he was not allowed to eat it, because of the prohibition of Ever Min Hachai.
Rambam holds that Adam wasn't given the prohibition of Ever Min Hachai. The Kesef Mishna explains that this is because Adam wasn't permitted to eat meat at all.
Rashi on Chumash (Genesis 1:30) says that Adam and Chava were not allowed to "kill animals and eat meat", and commentaries disagree on the exact scope of this prohibition. The Gur Aryeh (quoted here) says that Rashi is saying that Adam was forbidden to eat meat at all. The Mizrachi says that Rashi is saying that humans were only not allowed to kill animals, (quoted here, original here).
R' Yehuda Ben Besaira says (Sanhedrin 59B) that while Adam HaRishon was in Gan Eden, the angels roasted meat for him.
See here and here.
Here are the stages of eating meat:

Adam: According to Tosafot, Adam was allowed to eat meat that had died on their own, but was not able to kill animals and eat them. According to others, he was not able to eat meat at all.
Noach: The Ramban (Genesis 1:29) explains that all the animals were supposed to die in the flood. Since they only survived because Noach saved the animals from extinction, Noach was given the right to kill meat and eat it, but was not allowed to eat the limb of a living animal. As the Ramban puts it, Noach was only given control over the animals body, not the soul. This prohibition included not drinking the animals blood while the animal was still alive (Bereshit 9:4 and Rashi there).
Jews: The Torah was given and the Jews were given additional restrictions.

They were not only not permitted to eat the limb of a living animal, but even after the animal was dead they were not allowed to eat the blood, since the blood is the soul (Vayikra 17:10 and on).
They had to ritually slaughter the meat, they were not allowed to just kill it. (Devarim 12:21 - see Rashi)

Jews in the Desert vs. Jews in the Holy Land: While the Jews were in the desert, there is an argument (Gemara Chulin 16B-17A) between R' Akiva and R' Yishmael regarding whether the Jews were able to eat regular meat (Called "Meat of Desire" as opposed to sacrificed meat). R' Yishmael says that the Jews were not allowed to just slaughter an animal and eat it. The only way they were allowed to eat meat was by offering a sacrifice and then eating the leftovers. (Vayikrah 17:1-9 - and Rashi on Devarim 12:20).
Once they entered the land however, they were permitted to slaughter and eat meat without having to bring a sacrifice, since the distance to the Beis Hamikdash was too great to expect the Jews to go to the Beis Hamikdash every time they wanted to eat meat. This is the opinion Rashi brings (Devarim 12:20-21).
R' Akiva disagrees. He says that the laws of Shechita didn't start until the Jews entered the land. In the desert they were able to just kill the animal and eat it. Only a sacrifice had to be ritually slaughtered. Once they entered the land, they were only allowed to do Shechita before eating the animal. The Rambam rules according to Rabbi Akiva in Hilchos Shechita 4:17-18.
In Likkutei Sichos Volume 4, Parshat Re'eh (this is in Yiddish, if anyone has a link to a hebrew translation, please add it), The Lubavitcher Rebbe notes that Rashi brings the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, but also brings the reason of Rabbi Akiva. The Rebbe explains the root of their disagreement, how Rashi could combine the two opinions and teaches how we can apply that to our daily service and spiritual endeavors. (See an English translation here).

As an aside, here is an interesting article from the Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Society regarding Vegetarianism From A Jewish Perspective. This article also touches on some of these issues.
Comment: This doesn't answer the question. The question is why it changed, not LITTERALY what changed.
Comment: see also Kli Yakar to Bereshit 27:3 (pointed out by YDK in the comments http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10616/animals-vs-plants-kashrus/10619#10619) - http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14020&st=&pgnum=340
Comment: Regarding point 4, Rabbi Tzvi Yolles in Sefer Kehillat Yaacov explains that in the generation that left Egypt, they did not have Shechita in regard to food, which involves trachea, esophagus and jugular. Meat was prepared for consumption by the process of 'Nechirah' which involves the nerves and brain function. Shechita became a requirement upon entering the land of Israel. As he explains there, 'shechitah' is associated with Malchut, while 'nechirah' is associated to 'Zeir Apin'. That means the 'nechirah' is not connected to the material/physical plane.
Comment: @Orion yes is does in this part: "The Ramban (Genesis 1:29) explains that all the animals were supposed to die in the flood. Since they only survived because Noach saved the animals from extinction, Noach was given the right to kill meat and eat it, but was not allowed to eat the limb of a living animal"
Answer: Noach's generation had forgotten the difference between humans and animals (in the generation of the flood, people drew up marriage contracts between two men, or between people and animals). Telling Noach that people could eat the flesh of animals was intended to drive home the distinction between humans and animals.
Comment: This answer was already given [here](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/5361/9682).
Comment: where is the source of this?
Answer: Ralbag in his commentary to Genesis 1:29 explains that nothing changed, and man was in fact allowed to eat meat all along. He quotes the Talmudic statement that there was in fact a change, and says that this exposition of some of the Sages is "an utter falsehood from which it is fitting for every man of intelligence to flee". He argues that it is a philosophical impossibility for the Divine Will to change (by first forbidding meat and then permitting meat), and asserts that in these types of matters we only accept that which accords with the principles of Torah and philosophy regardless of who says it. We are not obligated to accept everything the Sages say, because we already see that they sometimes contradict each other which indicates that some of their statements on these types of matters might not be correct:

והנה מה שאמר ויאמר אלהים הנה נתתי לכם את כל עשב וגו'  הוא בריאה ונתינת
  טבע  לא מצוה והעד הנאמן  אמרו בסוף הענין  ויהי כן  ואופן הבריאה הזאת
  הוא שנתן בכח האדם שיהיו הצמחים מזון לו  עם היותם רחוקים מאד מטבעו  וכן
  נתן זה הכח לשאר הב"ח ומזה המקום יסור הספק אשר יסופק מזה המאמר  וזה
  שהוא מבואר מצד העיון ומצד התורה שהרצון האלהי לא ישתנה  וכבר יחשב
  שיחוייב מזה המאמר שישתנה רצון השם במה שיצוהו מהמצות וזה  שכבר יחשב
  שהשם יתברך מנע בזה המאמר אכילת בשר לאדם  ואחר כן התירו לנח  במאמרו  כל
  רמש אשר הוא חי לכם יהיה לאכלה וזהו שקר עצום ראוי שיברח ממנו כל בעל דעת
  וכבר אמרו זה בדרש קצת רז"ל  אלא שבאלו הענינים ובכיוצא בהם לא נביט
  למאמר אומר  כמו שהורנו הרב המורה  אבל נמשך אל מה שיאות על שרשי התורה
  והעיון  והוא מבואר שאין ההאמנה בכל מה שאמרוהו רז"ל מחוייבת לנו  כי כבר
  ימצאו להם דברי סותרים קצתם קצת  ולזה לא נרחיק היות בהם דברים בלתי
  צודקים בכמו אלו הדברים
Comment: Isn't the OP clearly asking according to the opinion (of Chazal) that Adam *was* forbidden to eat meat? How does the Ralbag arguing answer the question?
Comment: @Loewian I suppose it might not directly answer the question, but given that the question asked what changed, it seems at least somewhat relevant that the Ralbag asserts that the premise is incorrect precisely because *nothing could have changed*.
Comment: (Also, how does the Ralbag deal generally with all other changed in law - e.g. *horaot shaa* - *basar nechira*, *chulin* after the *midbar*, not to mention *maamad har sinai*.  Not to mention instances where G-d "changes" his relationship/response to man, as it were, based on man's choices - e.g. *galus* and *geula*?
Comment: relevant as a comment perhaps
Comment: @Loewian He addresses that (somewhat) in the very next paragraph.
Answer: The basic answer is since Noach representing Humanity as a whole feed the animals and Kept them alive so to now they6 feed us and keep us alive even though the Gemara says an Am Haaretz should not eat meat.
Answer: In addition to the sages' thoughts on this, as mentioned by other answers here, another possibility is from the Tenakh itself, in Bereishit 3, as animals were used for human purposes:

"Then Ad-nai El-him made garments of
  skin for Adam and his wife and clothed
  them."

Additionally, shortly after the garments of skin, the first instance of divine approval of animal death for sacrifices appears:

"And Abel also brought an offering—fat
  portions from some of the firstborn of
  his flock. Ad-nai looked with favor on Abel and his offering."

If, by this time, animals were being used for clothing and for offerings, and both were approved by G-d, one may suggest using animals for food was likewise approved.
edit: And by Bereishit 9, G-d formally approves of eating animal flesh for food. Whether animals were used for food prior to this is speculation based on Bereishit 3 and 4, where animals are used for clothing and sacrifices.
Comment: Although usually I am a big believer in the freedom of *derech hap'shat* even in contrast to *chazal*, here you are contradicting the simple meaning of [Bereshis 9](http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0109.htm), which implies a novel permission to kill animals for food. There is no reason to extend the permissiveness regarding using animals as offerings to God to using them for human consumption, and that's assuming that Abel offered animals that were not already dead or even that he offered the animals themselves instead of just their wool and/or milk etc., which itself is an assumption....
Comment: ....Certainly with regards to the clothing, there is no reason to say that the animals were killed for this purpose. Either the animals were already dead like many commentators explain, or they were made from cotton or wool (translate: "clothing [for their] skin" instead of "clothing [made of] skin") as per Bereshis Rabbah 2.
Comment: Thanks for offering a reason for the down-vote, at least. :-) Regarding your objection, it's true G-d formally approves in Bereishit 9. However, my answer doesn't contradict that, rather, it suggests that humans may have been killing animals before then. When animals are being used for clothing and sacrifices, it's a reasonable assumption they were being killed. And if they were being killed, is it not possible they were used for food? That's what my answer is saying: animals may have been used for food soon after Adam and Chavah ate from the tree.
Comment: Regarding the assumption that Abel offered already-dead animals as a sacrifice seems to defeat an important part of the text: "Abel offered fat portions from the **first-born of his flock**." This is a common theme in Torah: a pleasing sacrifice was one that offered the best the worshiper had, the first born of the flock, or the first fruits of the field. If the animal is already dead, it's hardly the best the worshipper had; in fact, it's the opposite.
Comment: First, that is not my down vote, but I thought I'd offer an explanation for it anyway. Second, I would agree with you that taking the usage of animals for clothing and offerings alone, it *is* a reasonable assumption that they were used for food as well. However, in the context of the previously-quoted Bereshis 9, and especially in light of Bereshis 1:29, it is *not* a reasonable assumption that animals were killed for food prior to the flood, and thus the previous (reasonable) assumption is no longer reasonable.
Comment: As for your second comment, perhaps you are correct that Abel's offering involved killing live animals, but that in no way implies that they were permitted to kill for their own consumption. Also, I must point out that you mistranslated the verse you quoted. It should read "Abel offered from the first-borns of his flock and from their fat", not that it is any better implicated in either of our favor.
Comment: Ah, I see what you're getting at. If G-d approves of animals-for-food only in Bereishit 9, then they weren't used for food earlier, is your reasoning. That's the majority view, yes. I guess my answer is along the lines of: even though G-d had only given green plants for food, things went wrong, and things changed: they were banished from Gan Eden, they were ashamed of nakedness, and animals were used for clothing and sacrifices. It still seems reasonable, then, that animals may have been used for food after things went sour. But it is only speculation.
Comment: @JudahGabriel, Fair enough. My point is simply that it seems difficult to say this explanation, contextually speaking. Also, just thinking, it doesn't seem to fit either with Adam's curse before his expulsion, as the permission to eat animals seems to undermine the necessary toil of the earth for food. I would be much more content if you can find an earlier source for this interpretation.
Comment: @JudahGabriel, another possible way of explaining Abel's offering would be that he placed a live animal on the altar (without slaughtering it), and then G-d sent down a fire to consume it. So not necessarily was he allowed to kill animals for sacrifices either. Same thing with Noah's offerings after the Flood (Gen. 8:20), right before G-d granted permission to kill animals for food.
Comment: That's speculation as well. The bottom-line question seems to be, since animals were used in sacrifices and clothing prior to Genesis 9, did humans also use them for food? The Torah doesn't say, so it's speculation.

Eating Meat: What Changed?


What precautions should I take when hiking among herds of elk?

Question: During certain times of the year, some of the hiking trails near where I live wind through herds of elk standing on or near the trails. What precautions should you take when hiking among elk?
Comment: I grew up in a mountain town that has a herd of elk living in it all year long. It wasn't uncommon to see hundreds of elk in and around town. I must confess, I don't think we ever gave them any thought as far as taking precautions around them. We treated them like cattle, they were just there, we did our thing and they did their thing. Leave them alone and they'll leave you alone.
Answer:
Use common sense.
Don't make any sudden movements.
Don't run or jog, walk at a consistent and normal pace.
Give them their space, respect them from a distance.
Don't get in between a cow elk and her calves - the cow elk and/or bull elk will find this threatening and may charge you.
Leave your dog/pets at home.  Most dogs can't resist chasing elk and elk will feel threatened.

If you are being given threatening looks or are in an encounter with an elk:

back away slowly - as if you turn back, you won't know if he/she is charging you.
make yourself look as large as possible
if charged at, curl up in the fetal position, with your arms and hands protecting your head and neck.  A cow elk may give you a couple of thumps with her hooves and leave you be.
Answer: The rule of thumb in Banff National Park is to keep three bus lengths away from elk.  Having said that it's easy to accidentally be within a few feet an an elk. Don't panic if it happens, it's very unlikely the elk will charge you (in Banff we see elk every day but there hasn't been a contact incident in 3 years).  Elk are easily startled but most of the time they are ambivalent, and more rarely either walking away or flee outright. The rare time when an elk might charge unprovoked is if you are between a cow and its calves (spring time) or near bulls or their harem during rutting season (fall).
Comment: I should mention most contact incidents with both elk and bears in Banff are a result of either the use of a bicycle or the person jogging/skiing with headphones on.
Comment: I'm from just South of Banff in the Elk Valley, a little  district municipality called Elkford. Needless to say we have lots of Elk too. In all my years of living with elk I've never heard of any dangerous encounters with them (Except for calving season, when for some reason they'd always calve right outside our office windows.) They always seem to keep to themselves and never bothered anyone. They have problems with them on the Golf course sometimes, but for the most part they're no different than cows in a field.


Benefit of using Infura for deploying smart contract

Question: I have gone through Infura's website, blog and other resources but I am not clear about the benefit I'll get from using it for and after deploying my smart contract for an ICO sale. Do I really need it? Frankly, most of the things are going above my head. Can somebody explain it to me in simple terms?
Answer: Infura has the advantage that you do not have to setup your own node.
The disadvantage is that you have to trust infura.

Frankly, most of the things are going above my head.

This is not a desirable condition if you're planing to do an ICO.
Comment: But, you dont need to run your own node to deploy a smart contract. You can just use any public node if you have the rpc url. Still not clear whats the benefit.
Answer: it is easy to use API and developer tools provide secure, reliable, and scalable access to Ethereum and IPFS.the advantage will be that you don't have to set up your own node and download data and sync up.
And people are using infura as there site suggests that 10B+ requests per day and 35,000+ dapps are served till now.All the best for your ICO.


Not able to connect to internet using chrome

Question: I am not able to connect to the internet using my chrome and opera browser while I am able to browse perfectly using Firefox.I am using Windows 7 and my connection is ADSL and using a Netgear wireless router
Comment: Is this for all sites?
Answer: Is the Windows Firewall blocking the outgoing connections?
I don't have Windows 7 installed on this machine so I can't check the options you need, but check that it's set to "ask" or "prompt" when a new program tries to make an outgoing connection.
If it is set that way check the current rules to see if Chrome and Opera have been blocked.
Answer: Have you checked the Proxy settings?
Options -> Under the hood -> change proxy settings
If you're using it at home probably you just habe to clear al the proxy settings


Can any Christian action truly be morally good?

Question: If someone does a morally good action because they fear God, which is a selfish motive, surely this means it is not a morally selfless action.
In the same way, if any morally good action is not spontaneous, is it truly morally good?
Jesus telling people to show god's love and those people then going out and feeding the hungry, means those helpers have an ulterior motive and may have not helped if Jesus had commanded otherwise.
So in conclusion: are all Christian selfless acts of kindness truly selfless or even morally good? Can you be selfish and morally good?
Comment: I Christianity "morally good" means "according to God's will", not selfless. If the fear of God induces them to do what God wills then that is good, and by implication, so is the fear of God. And generally,  "selfless actions have selfish motives" is an old fallacious argument based on confusing terms and equivocation, see [Is altruism a contradiction?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/56754/9148)
Comment: If you'll forgive me speaking for Christians, it seems to me that those who worship out of fear are the least faithful of that (or any) faith. Those who are strongest in faith act out of love and joy, because they know that no one has anything to fear. True faith is a wonderful thing. Would that more people in the world had it...
Comment: i think the close is too quick.
Comment: This problem is well-known in the contemplative tradition of Christianity. There are even prayers that ask for protection from acting only to please God, for just the reasons you mention. .
Comment: Couldn't agree more @another_name. And what's "community" in the closer-list? This q is strongly within christian context. That one not. To club them together is a gross loss of nuance
Comment: @PeterJ I'd be interested to know more about these prayers. (maybe add-able into my answer below?)
Comment: Thank you all very useful
Comment: The question shouldn't have been closed as divine worship and altruism can be interpreted as seperate categories under certain contexts.  Doing a good act without be told to verses the nature of the command to do a good act out of religious belief, both can be construed as seperate things.
Comment: The question may be a duplicate but the answers are not. I have revised my own answer and decided that the question is logically problematic.
Comment: @Rusi-packing-up "Community" closing the question means the question author agreed and voted to close it themselves!
Comment: @Rusi-packing-up - I've read some but cannot find an example at the moment. There's a famous one by a female saint but I can't remember who it was. . .
Comment: @curiousdanni...really the question is open again. Geoffrey Thomas, the question is observing action from the perspective of belief based assumptions...not altruism.  That is an integration bias on behalf of those who voted to close it.
Comment: The assumption behind this is that acting in your self-interest is bad, but acting contrary to your self-interest is good. This is wrong.
Answer:
If any morally good action is not spontaneous, is it truly morally good?

I give to a certain charity in a regular basis - it's part of my written budget, and I have auto-pay set up with my bank for it. I selected that charity in particular after considering what causes are important to me and researching the charity in question to make sure that they were financially responsible and were having an impact on the cause that I want to support. Does the fact that I'm not doing it spontaneously mean that it's not morally good?
If anything, I'd argue that if it was spontaneous, it would be less good because that would imply that I didn't research the charity, that I did not consider how much I can afford to give, that I haven't considered what causes were important to me, and that I haven't made plans for regular support of the organization. That would mean that I'd be giving less overall and that my giving would be more sporadic (which would mean that that the charity would have a less predictable income) and that my gifts may have less of an impact (if the charity wasn't very good because I didn't do research, for example).

are all Christian selfless acts of kindness truly selfless or even morally good? Can you be selfish and morally good?

The assumption embedded in this is that acting in your self-interest is bad, but acting contrary to (or at least without consideration of) your self-interest is good. That assumption is not clearly true by any means. I suppose that Kant would agree with this, but many others have disputed this, and some philosophers (most notably Ayn Rand) have argued that the exact opposite is true.

If someone does a morally good action because they fear God, which is a selfish motive

This has a false dilemma embedded in it because it assumes that the only reason that a Christian would do a good act is because they they're trying to win God's blessing or avoid punishment. In Christianity, the phrase "fear God" actually has a more subtle meaning than "I'm afraid that He's going to punish me" - it's more like "awe/respect". The entire concept of Christianity is that Christ's work frees us from a quid pro quo relationship with God, so claiming that we should do a good act to win God's favor or avoid His punishment would be terrible theology.
That being said, there are plenty of other possible reasons for Christians to do good works. For example, what if they do some morally good act because they love God, or because they've had their lives changed by their faith and genuinely enjoy doing good works? Indeed, Aristotle and others have long argued that truly virtuous people are intrinsically motivated to be virtuous.
Answer: Welcome Arlo Curley
A good, stimulating question though I doubt if it can be answered except against the background of assumptions about the nature and character of God's activity. On which, I might add, there is not likely to be consensus even among Christians. Also I am going to suggest that the question is unanswerable non-circularly.
In other words, whether and in what sense any Christian action - human action for the Christian - can be 'truly good' depends on the the nature and character of God's activity which is its necessary and fundamental context. And the nature and character of God's activity are essentially contestable.
But an answer can be ventured. May I stress that what follows is not the statement of a personal devotional viewpoint - I could be an atheist - but an exploration of the conceptual components, if we can identify them, of what counts as a good Christian action. Anyone, Christian or non-Christian, could assent to or reject these components depending on what they, on careful conceptual reflection, take the logic of Christian belief to be.
The nature and character of God: humans as agents only in a secondary sense

All Christians do not agree on basic beliefs. It is no surprise, therefore, that
   Christians hold different understandings regarding the nature of human
   moral activity. One motif many Christians do share regarding the nature of
   moral action is that, properly speaking, humans are not actors. Rather, moral
   activity, like all forms of human activity, is at best a response, a second step,
   to God's historical activity. Only God is an actor in the full sense of the
   word; humans are responders. (Ismael García, 'A Christian Interpretation of Moral Action',  Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 18 (1998), pp. 187-190: 187.)

So a good Christian action is (whatever else it may be) an action of response. To what?
Background 1: God as lawgiver
A response to God as lawgiver. Here we think of an ethics of divine commands:

[Those] Christians who understand God as a lawgiver will
   emphasize the moral virtues and duties of obedience. Obedience to God's
   law, given in the Decalogue or the Sermon on the Mount, becomes a primary moral obligation. Moral action is identified with obedience to laws or
   commandments that define duties. And insofar as biblical narratives are central to the moral formation of Christians, moral responsibility is attempting
   to discern and specify those principles contained therein that provide guidance. Such an ethic would emphasize the good traits intrinsic to the actions
   God requires from humankind. These laws, rules, and principles are defined
   as good in themselves because they fit with the nature of creative beings
   who need to be treated with integrity. In particular, these guidelines respond
   to a basic need that human dignity be respected and nourished. They also
   support the creation of those structural requirements that make it possible
   for people to experience the multiple joys and challenges of living in stable
   and ordered communities. Both the obligation to respect human dignity and
   of sustaining structures that allow for life in community are prerequisites for
   any kind of human flourishing. Moral activity is necessary for us as creatures
   to meet the basic human need for integrity and continuity. (García: 187.)

On this approach a good Christian action is one that (a) obey's God's laws, and does so not from fear of divine punishment but because those laws are seen (or better: taken on faith) as intrinsically good rules and principles for (c) the correct conduct of life for finite, created beings such as ourselves.
Background 2: God and God-given goals
A good Christian action might be seen from a different angle - as a response to God's purposes:

Other Christians understand God's historical activity as setting and/or
   pointing to those goals or ends that make life worth living. For them, clarity
   of vision and the prudential skills of choosing good means that will result
   in the desired good ends (notice that both means and ends must be good)
   constitute the core of human moral action. The kingdom or reign of God,
   the pursuit of Shalom, the realization of peace and justice are identified as
   goals worth pursuing. Actions that bring one closer to these ends will be
   identified as obligatory and good. Such consequential mode of moral thinking responds to the awareness that as created finite creatures and incomplete beings, humans long to fulfill those potential talents bestowed by God.
   Moral activity is more than duty and obedience, it is primordially one's inclination to contribute to the well-being of others, particularly to the realization of their talents. Moral obligations and duties therefore respond not only
   to our need of stability and integrity but also to our basic need for growth
   and change. (García: 187.)
In this view morality and sin are not so much disobedience but the pursuit of wrong ends, and carelessness in choosing good means, both of which
   distort the goals we are called to bring correctly about. Salvation or grace
   therefore consists of regaining the right vision, correctly identifying goals,
   and developing the virtue of courage that allows one to remain steadfast in
   pursuit of God-given goals. (García: 187.)

On this approach a good Christian action is one that (a) pursues God-given goals (not laws) precisely because (b) those goals are (believed or taken on faith to be) part of the correct vision God has for (c) how we ought to stand in relation to God's purposes and to treat one another.
Background 3: God and God's creative purpose

Still other Christians view God as neither a law giver nor a goal setter.
   Rather, God is a historical actor whose ... acts bring forth new beginnings. Moral activity consists of discerning both what God is doing in the
   world and what is a proper or fitting response to God's action. There are
   no particular laws or goals that exhaust what a person ought to do. Rather,
   people are called to be creative discerners and responders to the new occasion God creates through God's action. As we confront moral dilemmas,
   and in all that we do, we must act as if we are responding to God's creative
   purpose. The center of the moral life is to develop the kind of character
   traits that allow us to see and relate to all things as they are valued by God.(García: 188.)
In this view sin consists of making a particular finite entity the center of
   our valuing; that is, elevating to the status of God those things that are of
   lesser value. Sin also manifests itself as our lack of responsibility or our devaluing what God values as part of God's good creation. Salvation and grace
   consist in learning how to relate to all things as created and valued by God. (García:188.)

This gives the notion of a good Christian action what I'm inclined to call an existentialist turn. In any situation for action no-one and nothing - church, priest or sacred text - is a reliable, let alone an infallible, guide to 'what is a proper or fitting response to God's action'. We must use imagination, inference, and empirical knowledge to try to discern what response to make.
The fatal bite of circularity
All these answers can do is to answer the question, 'Can any Christian action truly be morally good ?', against the background of assumptions about the nature and character of God's activity. Minus those assumptions, no answer can be constructed. But even with those assumptions the questions has a fatal flaw. Only if we have an independent criterion, or set of criteria, for what the moral goodness of an action consists in, can we assess the moral goodness of a Christian action.
A Christian may reject the need for any such criterion, since any account of moral goodness must rely on an understanding of the goodness which is immanent in God. God is morally good, and any account of the moral goodness of an action must be in some way dependent on, derivative from, that.
A Christian will know this, so the question is unnecessary; and for a non-Christian the answer must be given via extra-Christian criteria for morally good action. There is no rational consensus on what such criteria might be.
Comment: It is a circular argument, you claim circularity is "bad" because circularity is "bad" and then proceed to project this circularity and an interpretation showing a selective bias.  All Christian's have a common core of beliefs where Christ is an authority giver, to say they don't is a fallacy.  Points one an two are circular as well considering the Christian in pursuing God given goals does so, even altruistically, out of some fear or cause and effect (ie no good is bad), thus altruism necessitates a causal nature where expected benefits are inseperable from the act.
Comment: Welcome. I am not attacking religion, Christianity or the Christian explanation of a morally good action. If you are a  Christian, then you presumably are satisfied that you know why an action is morally good. In any case, to say why the action is morally good, you have no materials except those provided by your Christian faith. You cannot break outside this circle of belief.  If you are a non-Christian, you need a criterion independent of Christianity to judge whether the action is morally good - independently of Christianity because you (the generic 'you) are not a Christian.
Comment: 'All Christian's have a common core of beliefs where Christ is an authority giver, to say they don't is a fallacy.' My argument, centred on God, explored **different but mutually compatible** ways in which Christians understand the role of God in relation to the moral life. *Christianity admits of such conceptual nuance.* And on a minor point, a denial is not and cannot be a fallacy. Fallacy occurs only where there is an argument; there is **no argument, only statement** in 'All Christian's have a common core of beliefs where Christ is an authority giver'. Btw I said nothing about this core
Comment: actually much of Christian interpretation is grounded in Pagan and Non Pagan philosophers (particularly Aquinas works as a synthesis) as well as many of the Faith's rituals reaching outside into Judaic and Pagan elements.  Even many of the Desert Fathers have heavy Buddhist elements in there writing (which they do not directly point to).  As to a second point, as denial can be a fallacy when using a false context to justify that denial.  All arguments are statements as all arguments effectively are tautologies of statements.
Comment: As to the statement about the "core", you seem to imply a percievably absense which can only be justified by an outside source to avoid circularity however that outside source must also be justified by an outside source thus leading to circularity or an infinite regress, with the tautological nature of this regress still necessitating circularity.  To summarize my stance, the issue is less one of substance but rather form as the form both determines and exists through that substance.
Comment: You have had your say, and I am glad that you have given time and attention to my answer. I don't think a continuation of this exchange would be helpful to either of us. Do you ? It is therefore terminated by this reply. I hope we may exchange views more fruitfully on another occasion.
Comment: @Geoffey Thomas, it is up to you.
Answer: Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotle, and defined virtue as an ordering toward the good (ST 1-2 Q 57, A1, Reply)
He also defines the fear of God by saying, "in relation to God the evil of fault can come to us, if we are separated from Him: and in this way God can and ought to be feared"  (ST 2-2, Q 19, A1 Answer).
The fear of God then is not a fear of "God is going to be angry with me". And, as far as I know, his concept of virtue resists transactional selfishness.
Something else to consider:  there is a sense within several medieval Christian mystics (Eckhart, Porete,  Mechthild, etc.) that the Christian who focuses on acting virtuous in fact lacks virtue. The true goal of a Christian, for them, is a spiritual union with God where they lose sense of themselves and are so focused on God that the concern for "right" and "wrong" is secondary.
These mystics seem to have a sense of right and wrong that is based on love and charity, and not on a set of rules "Do X because Jesus says Y" or "Do X otherwise God will be angry". There is also no strict legalism here, as far as I can tell.
Based on the above, I suspect that some formulations of Christian ethics may avoid the selfish, transactional, or legalistic frameworks the OP was concerned with. But ultimately, how you evaluate their ethics will largely depend on what ethical system you are coming from.
And also: there do seem to be a number of Christians who have a soteriologically oriented ethics, which does seem inherently selfish.  Then there are some, like the "red letter" Christians, whose ethics seems legalistic. But to label all Christians, or all systems of Christian thought, thusly seems to risks the fallacy of a hasty generalization.
Answer:
If someone does a morally good action because they fear God, which is
  a selfish motive, surely this means it is not a morally selfless
  action.
  In the same way, if any morally good action is not spontaneous, is it
  truly morally good?

This statement is controversial because according to the New Testament as told by Jesus Christ God is not to be feared because it is a "God of love". Also actions based on fear can be altruistic e.g. "fear not for what may happen to you but fear for what may happen to a loved one."

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so
  you must love one another" John 13:34

Non-spontaneous good actions can be morally good. Your actions may be based on what you think it's ethical or the right thing to do or compatible with the spiritual teachers you believe in even when you feel bad about taking those actions (envy, rage, resentment etc).

"Vengeance is Mine" Deuteronomy 32:35 New King James Version

Love can be both selfish and selfless. You can give away love because you enjoy it or as a way to fight other attitudes such us intolerance or hatred.  This is not only valid in Christianity. e.g. the 1960's slogan "Make love not war"
It's impossible to know what the real motives for each person are. Some will act because they want to improve their "souls" others because they are tired of rage and hatred and want to learn to love, others because they expect to be rewarded in heaven or because they seek salvation. In Christianity people are not meant to judge other people's actions, souls and motives that's only for God to decide. In this religion each individual as a personal and private relationship with God. Ultimately it's up to you to have faith or not...

God is the only lawgiver and judge. He alone can save and destroy. Who
  do you think you are, to judge someone else? James 4:12
Answer: People sacrifice by nature.
You can work 80 hours a week and sacrifice for a paycheck.
Or play video games 80 hours a week and sacrifice for some pleasure.
Or balance it out.
Either way, considering the limited amount of time you have, you are sacrificing your times for a perceivable end.
Any message, in this case Christian, is a means of directing this natural self sacrificial quality.
As to the reason, something beyond oneself or the self becomes vague when the self is perceived as an extension of the environment.
This nature of "directing sacrifice" is not really covered in depth by any major philosophers I am aware of.  At best you are looking at the philosophy of Nagarjuna and the instrinsic emptiness of being as close to it.
Answer:
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom...

is a well-known proverb from the old testament.  Looking it up I find it interesting that there is a second clause

... and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

The first thing to note is fear is the beginning.
And it's evidently a good beginning
And then we move on...
To a unitary knowledge that is (true) understanding
IOW there is a gradation of steps starting at fear

This is spelled out in a different culture and context in the mythological text the Shiva Purana where Parvati is instructed about how to be a chaste wife as she is about to marry Shiva.
The mytholog background is that after terrific penance and austerity for aeons Parvati has attained to the unattainable Shiva.
The metaphysic of this is that Parvati represents the soul who from life to life yearns for God – Shiva. And after interminable time does finally attain.
These are the instructions she is given

A chaste lady sanctifies the worlds, destroys sins and is blessed. None else is so worthy of respect.
O gentle lady, the chaste ladies can be divided into four classes. Even when they are remembered they dispel sins. The divisions comprise of the supreme, middling etc.
They are supreme, middling, inferior and very inferior. I shall explain their characteristics. Listen with attention.
O gentle lady, she whose mind is not aware of any one else and who is conscious of her husband even in her dreams is the noblest of all.
O daughter of the mountain, she who sees another man as her father, brother or son with a clean conscience is the middling among chaste ladies.
O Pārvatī, she who ponders over her duty mentally and desists from going astray is inferior among the chaste. Of course she is pure in conduct.
She who remains chaste for fear of her husband or the family is very inferior among the chaste ladies, so say the ancient poets.
O Pārvatī, these four types of chaste ladies dispel sins. They sanctify all the worlds. They are delighted here and hereafter.

IOW it seems to me that here too one may start inferior and climb the ladder!

What I find strikingly analogous in the Christian and the Hindu versions is

Whereas fear is the lower rung
The sense of the Unitary is the highest


I accidently deleted LG home on my LG p500 phone

Question: I did a system reset after having deleted LG home on my LG android phone p500. I thought the system app would be restored, but the fact is now. I don't have a "desktop". I cant get to anywhere now on my phone, it is just one big black screen. Anyway that I could fix it? Thanks a million.
Answer: Your best bet would be to reflash the ROM, since system reset only clears the user data, it won't restore system apps. A quick google search revealed this tutorial on how to reflash stock ROM: How to flash Original Firmware on the LG Optimus One P500
Answer: As long as your Google account still is configured on the device (and the latter is connected to either WiFi or the mobile network), the simplest solution would be to visit the Google Playstore, log in with the same account you're using on your Android device, chose an alternative launcher app (e.g. Holo Launcher), hit the "Install" button, and approve its permissions. A few minutes later, the app should be installed on your device -- and you again have a working home-screen.
There's a big mis-conception about factory-reset, as the name is misleading: It won't reset to "as shipped from the factory", but simply remove all settings and user-installed apps -- so it looks like "fresh from a factory". For details, see the factory-reset tag wiki.


How do honest mining pools generally divide their rewards?

Question: I've been reading a little about mining pools and the Stratum protocol for requesting work from mining pools and it got me to wondering.  How does an honest mining pool divide up rewards?  I see that the protocol allows for workers to request work from the pool, but how does the mining pool know how much work each worker has done?  As far as I can tell, workers only report back to the mining pool when they have "solved" a hash and want to submit their answer for consideration.  But what if that worker just lucky and there are other miners who have done  much more work -- do they get paid the same?  Similarly does a miner who is in the pool but hasn't solved anything get paid anything?
Answer: Mining pools use a system that is based on shares. Shares are blocks with proof of works for a different difficulty than the network difficulty. Mining pools will set the difficulty for a given miner to be something that is reasonable for it to achieve. So when that miner mines, it is looking for a block hash that meets the pool difficulty. Once it does, it submits the block. That submitted block, although likely not valid to the Bitcoin network, meets the pool difficulty and is known as a share.
So mining pools will count the shares and give weight to each share based upon the difficulty that it was mined at. In this way, the mining pool can determine how much work each miner has done on average and pay them accordingly once a block is actually found.
Blocks are found when a share meets both the pool difficulty and the network difficulty.
Answer: Since mining a block (solving the mathematical problem) is random by nature, any miner has a chance at receiving the reward of a finding a block.  Miners with more hash power have a higher probability of solving the math problem, finding the block, and winning the block reward. With the large number of miners competing to find blocks, mining pools have materialized to combine the total hash rate of all the pool members to increase the probability of hashing blocks and optimize the probability of gaining block rewards. The pool keeps track of each member's (miner's) contribution to the total hash and the block rewards are distributed to each member of the pool based on each miner's contribution. It doesn't matter which individual miner mines the block as the rewards are proportionately distributed. It's similar to office workers pooling funds to buy lottery tickets. They agree to share the winnings no matter which individual actually wins. To be fair, if someone in the office pool buys more tickets to the lottery than everyone else, they would get a proportionately higher percentage of the winnings, even if their tickets didn't actually win. In mining, pools allow for a more steady income stream instead of an individual going months or years before actually mining a block,if ever, on their own.


Can I sort rows in Google Sheets by date?

Question: In Google sheets I'm trying to sort rows according to a date column. According to my experience I can use column filtering and choose to sort data from A-Z. However this will give a wrong result for dates. For example 1/7 will come before 30/6, even though it comes after it. Is there an option to store and sort the data as date type, and not string type?
Comment: Consider using DD-MM-YYYY date format. it's worth it. ;)
Answer: As the OP already figured out, sorting dates correctly on Google Sheets and other spreadsheet applications like Excel, require that dates are date values, not strings.
Using dates on the form '1/7' could lead to problems because it's an ambiguous date format as this could mean, on ISO 8601 extended format, 2017-01-07 or 2017-07-01.
Spreadsheet users should know the spreadsheet regional settings before adding this kind of values to their spreadsheet and use the appropriate date format to avoid values being misinterpreted by the application and by the themselves and the people to share with.
Related questions on this site:

Sorting Google spreadsheet by month and day but not year
Date format in spreadsheet (google doc)
Google sheets recently changed American datetime format, how do I change it back?


Reduction of the diphthong "ou" to "ō" in Middle and Modern Japanese

Question: I noticed that in the word 子牛 both "o" and "u" are pronounced while in the word 格子 there is a long "ō" and they are, respectively, written in rōmaji (Hepburn romanization) koushi and kōshi.
What I'd like to ask you is if:
1) in Middle Japanese the diphthong "ou" was reduced to "ō" only when the two vowels were part of the same syllable (like in 格子)
2) the reduction happened only in kango and waseigo or it happened also in some yamato kotoba
Answer: Is coalescence blocked between syllables?
No, coalescence also occurs between syllables, and even involving vowels from different morphemes.  In fact it's not clear whether /ou/ was even a diphthong to being with; it's quite possible that it only ever existed as a hiatus.  In modern Tokyo Japanese probably only /ai/, /oi/ and /ui/ are actual diphthongs (every vowel sequence ending in -u needs another syllable for it; they coalesce nonetheless).
Was historical coalescence restricted to kango words?
No, it happened throughout the entire lexicon.  Primitive Japanese had no sequential vowels, so yamato-kotoba examples aren't as plentiful as kango; but some vowel sequences did emerge later, and among them, /ou/ did coalesce into /o:/.  For example, *saso-pu → saso-u → sasō.
Notice that /au/ also coalesced into /o:/, so that /au/ and /ou/ merged.  Diphthongs in /-i/, by contrast, were resistant and survived to this day.  So hayau → hayō but hayai → hayai.
Regarding questions raised in the comment thread:
Is coalescence blocked between morphemes? What about words?
Consider:

Conclusive (終止形) suffix -u: saso-u /saso:/
Adjectival suffix -u: samuk-aro-u /samukaro:/
御宇 gyo-u /gyo:/
如雨露 jo-u-ro /Zo:ro/

By contrast:

子牛 ko-usi /kousi/
小唄 ko-uta /kouta/
壇ノ浦 dan-no-ura /daNnoura/
選挙運動 senkyo-undō /seNkjoundo:/
左顧右眄 sako-uben /sakouben/

For the purposes of coalescence, compound words (words made of two free words) count as "different words".  So a word like usi or uta won't lose its u-, but a bound suffix might.
Notice that this is consistent with other forms of coalescence in Japanese.  So au > ō regardless of whether it was found in native Japanese or Sinitic words, and across morpheme boundaries (haya-u → hayō), but not across word boundaries (matu-ga-ura → matu-ga-ura).  Even other sound changes behave similarly; 買ひ → ka-wi → ka-i (cross-morpheme lenition) vs. 朝日 → asa-hi (no cross-word lenition).
What about words like 降雨 or 堂宇?
The final -u doesn't coalesce: /ko:u/, /do:u/.  However, the previous /o:/ is already long, so they wouldn't coalesce anyway (/o::/ isn't a legal coda).
Does coalescence behavior differ between yamato-kotoba and kango words?
From the above, it seems like not (except indirectly, insofar as diphthongs are rare in yamato-kotoba and free-word compounds are plentiful).
Sources:

Kubozono, Diphthongs and vowel coalescence (in: The Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology)
Kenkyūsha's Japanese-English dictionary, for pronunciation guides.
Comment: Among your examples, 終止形 -u sound just like /u/ now, though it's tradition to pronounce /o:/ when reciting Classical works. 如雨露 is ateji, it's from Portuguese. 御宇 should be /gyou/ if I remember correctly.
Comment: Thank you, leoboiko. Yes, /au/ was reduced to /ɔː/ (distinct from /ou/ > /oː/ in Middle Japanese) and then merged with /oː/ (< /ou/) in Modern Japanese (like arigataku > arigatau > arigatɔː > arigatoː).
I'm now searching if the /ou/ pronunciation is stable in kango and waseigo like 杜宇, 堂宇, 御宇, 降雨, as it happens in yamato kotoba like 小唄, which is still pronounced /ko.u.ta/.
Comment: I'm not sure.  Forvo.com has a 降雨 where I can hear an -u, and Kenkyūsha gives -u forms for 降雨 and 堂宇. However, these are /oou/ sequences; they could hardly become /oːː/. I can't find data on 杜宇 (do people even use the on'yomi of that?), and 御宇 is /gyo:/ in both Kenkyūsha and Suzuki-kun, so I'm guessing the real constraint here might be *ou* > *oo* and *ouu* > *oou*.
Comment: Probably, but on forvo you can hear 壇ノ浦の戦い pronounced dan'nouranotatakai but, again, "ura" is kun'yomi. I'm wondering if in on'yomi compounds in which the first word ends with an "o" and the second one begins with a "u" the pronunciation is "ou" or "ō". Among jōyō kanji, ,only these ones, 右 宇 羽 雨 鬱  運 雲 , begin with a "u" in their on'yomi pronunciation.
Comment: A bigger list follows: 芋右宇烏羽迂雨欝蔚云運雲怨芸胡佑優有祐于侑傴吁吽嗚塢嫗慍挧暈桙鬱殞熨燠盂禹紆紜繧耘茴薀藝蘊褞謳隕饂鶤齲偊呍噁噢圩圬埡妋姷‌弙忶惲愪扜抎捥摳杅杇栯橒櫌歍氳洿浟溳漚澐‌瀀煨熅熰玗琇瑀瑦痀痏盱磒秇竽筠篔縕縜耰耺‌茡莙菀蒕蓲蕓虶螐觱轀运迶邘鄅鄆鄔鄖醞釪隖‌雩霣韗韞餫饇骬鰞鵾溫 . However, I found it hard to find cross-kanji /o-u/ sequences in practice. I've reedited my answer to account for things we discussed in this thread.
Comment: "So a word like usi or uta won't lose its u-, but a bound suffix might.".. "From the above, it seems like not (except indirectly, insofar as diphthongs are rare in yamato-kotoba and free-word compounds are plentiful)."
Thank you. These two answers cleared my doubts.
Comment: @broccoliforest even with grep, it was quite hard to find relevant examples. 御宇 isn't listed on NHK akusento jiten; I got its pronunciation from Kenkyūsha, which does seem to take care to distinguish /o:/ from /ou/ in its entries.
Answer:
1) in Middle Japanese the diphthong "ou" was reduced to "ō" only when the two vowels were part of the same syllable (like in 格子)

I think what you mean is "the same morpheme", because that's the difference tells 子牛 from 格子. This is a part of four sound shifts have taken place in parallel.

//au// → //ɔː// → //oː//
//iu// → //yuː//
//eu// → //yoː//
//ou// → //oː//

This sound shift has had effect mostly inside a morpheme with a few exceptions, but most of those exceptions are eventually reverted in today's language. Some examples of surviving exceptional outcomes are:

the volitional suffix: 行かむ //yuka-mu// → 行こう //ikoː//, 出でむ //ide-mu// → //(i)dyoː// (→ leveled to 出よう //deyoː//) etc.
-うと/-うど pseudo-suffix series: 素人 //sira-bito// → //siraudo// → //siroːto//, 玄人 //kuro-bito// → //kuroudo// → //kuroːto// etc.
酔ふ //weɸ-u// → //eu// → //yoː// (→ leveled to 酔う //yo-u//)
言ふ //iɸ-u// → //iu// → //yuː// (deemed non-standard now)

In fact, 格子 has never been pronounced like //kousi// despite its modern spelling, because its actual historical development is //kakusi// → //kausi// → //kɔːsi// → //koːsi//. The reason it's spelled こうし is because the Modern Kana Orthography defines that all historical おう, おふ, あう, あふ that pronounced as //oː// should be replaced with おう.

2) the reduction happened only in kango and waseigo or it happened also in some yamato kotoba

This sound change affected all qualified diphthongs regardless of kango or wago (yamato-kotoba), but since such combinations are rare in native Japanese words, the great portion of the effect was seemingly exerted on kango.

塔 (kango) //taɸu// → //tau// → //toː//
尊き (wago) //taɸuto-ki// → //tauto-i// → 尊い //toːto-i//

But some wago apparently showed some degree of resistance.

倒るる //taɸur-uru// → //taur-uru// → 倒れる //taore-ru//
cf. 放る //ɸaɸur-u// → //ɸaur-u// → //hoːr-u//
Comment: Thanks, broccoli forest. Why do the Japanese use the spelling おう in place of おお in words like 格子? Was this practice developed during  the Early Modern Japanese period (first half of the 17th century), when /ɔː/ (</au/) merged with  /oː/ (</ou/). In other words, I'd expect  おお from a modern phonemic orthography or あう from an etymological orthography, not おう, which is neither modern nor etymological.
Comment: @nino83 See my edited answer.
Comment: Thank you! So this reform was made in 1946, more or less.


Sealing a wound: ice or fire?

Question: Assume that a magician has the ability to create both flames and ice. His Muggle (for the lack of a better word) friend is wounded and is bleeding profusely. Traditionally, in most fantasy books where modern technology does not exist, cauterization would be used to seal that wound. However, I know that realistically cauterization is a contentious method of stanching blood flow. Since this magician can manipulate ice as well, would sealing a wound with a sheet of ice over the wound be preferable to searing the wound with fire? Assume that the magician can reinforce the ice sheet at any time. I should also mention that I do not mean for the ice to be a permanent solution—just a method to prevent the friend from bleeding out on the spot.
Comment: Can the magician summon up a tourniquet? For most bleeding wounds, especially on limbs, a tourniquet is the best option.
Comment: Ice would accelerate the bleeding and cause a faster death...but it's good for reducing pain
Comment: @渡し守シャロン Cold slows bleeding, it doesn't accelerate it. Ice fights inflammation by restricting blood vessels, heat expands them to increase blood flow to speed up platelet/white cell healing.
Comment: +1 both for an interesting question, and for maintaining the traditional distinction between *stanch* and *staunch*. :-)
Comment: Usually I'd associate water or air magic to heal a bleeding wound. Using fire or ice sound intriguing and [painful at the same time. Why not using both, see what will happen?
Comment: if you throw water a patient it won't heal it... unless you are religious then you can believe it was a powerful healing.
Comment: Fire would permanently seal it, ice would not and runs the risk of frostbite.
Comment: If he is a magician and it is a fantasy story why not use cold fire?  Flames, cold to the touch and heals.
Answer: Both are useful in different ways.
Ice:  Ice will not staunch the bleeding in any meaningful way unless you were to actually freeze the tissue/blood.
But this is a terrible idea as the cells in your body are primarily...water.  Water does what when it freezes?  Right, it expands.  When your body freezes the cells literally burst.  This is what we of course call 'frostbite.' Once they thaw you have simply exacerbated the wound and as you can't heal while frozen there is no way to remedy the situation.
So in short, trying to use ice to staunch a wound with either do nothing or make things worse.
On the positive side ice can be used to clean the wound before it is sealed (although it may not be totally necessary...which Ill get to on fire).  It can also be used to treat swelling after the fact which even though very simple could help save a fair number of lives.
Fire:  Its going to hurt like crazy and it is less ideal than...you know stitches, but of the two options, fire is the only thing that will allow you staunch the wound in your scenario.
In short you burn flesh to seal things up.  We know from history that it works and was used for a long long time before medicine became a practice and came up with better options.
One piece of misinformation is the idea that the process of cauterizing a wound sterilized it and kept infection at bay.  While partially true, as fire will certainly kill bacteria, the process actually makes the tissue more prone and friendly to bacteria.

Best process.

Use fire to cauterize the wound.  You could optionally clean it with ice water before hand...this might help...but frankly...if you are cauterizing to save a life...
Once the wound is cauterized wrap it and keep it as clean as possible
Ice the wound to keep swelling down.  You should generally (with the exception of run away fever) never apply ice directly to the wound.  Putting cloth or something in between is best.  Ice can potentially save limbs...things can burst if swelling gets out of hand.  Also never underestimate the value of clean drinking water when healing.
Comment: Actually, to clarify, freezing is WAY more than expanding.  It actually creates a crystal structure, causing the water molecules to take up more room.  This structure is actually EXTREMELY sharp at the molecular level, so it cuts up your cell membranes.  The reason why thawed food are all mushy is because all the cell structures have been shredded internally by the frozen water molecules..
Comment: Aren't we all? There is always a downvoter; we can only hope they aren't serial.
Comment: I think you should add into your answer the possibility of shock. With fire, you have an instant possibility of the casualty going into shock (i mean on top of the blood loss). With ice, you are continually cooling the body (and worse still, the blood), which means theres an ongoing chance of shock.
Comment: You might use ice to numb the feelings, before you fry, *ahum* heal your muggle.
Comment: I'm curious about the downvote...
Answer: Fire, most definitely. Cauterization works because the vessels are literally fused shut.  The blood has a barrier to stop against.  Tissue is destroyed, but will heal again in most cases; even if by painful skin grafts.
Ice would constrict the vessels and slow the bleeding but it would not stop.  The warm blood against the ice would just constantly melt the ice and you'd end up with a wet bloody mess.  In a cold environment, this would end up killing the "patient" faster.
Comment: Then the ice would effectively be a bandage that also cools down the wounded area. Short term that would probably work better than the fire, since you only heed to heat it up a bit and the bandage and treat it properly. The longer you leave it on, though, the bigger the risk of frostbite and associated dangers around the wound. It also depends on the environment, how dangerous losing temperature is.
Comment: What about the fact that the ice is a physical blockage to the escape of blood? I mentioned that the magician can constantly replenish the ice, so there would be minimal melting.
Comment: Ice is far worse than "you'd end up with a wet bloody mess".  It will induce hypothermia, which is one pillar of the famous (in the medical community) **Trauma Triad of Death**.  The others are acidosis and coagulopathy, and these three form a positive feedback accelerating each other.  Simply put, the cold from the ice will impair the body's own clotting processes.
Comment: @lightweaver, he may be able to do it, but it wouldn't be effortless.  He'd constantly need to be replenishing that ice patch.  I guess it all depends on where they are, how far they have to go, whether or not the magician needs his full wits to get them to safety.  Cauterization is expediant and needs only a bandage to keep it clean.  The ice would be a nice pain relief after cauterization though and a way to keep swelling down on the wound.
Comment: Or laying ice on the surrounding tissue just before cauterising, then ice on the burn.
Comment: @lightweaver - if the magician is very skilled - he could minimize the amount of damage done through cauterization, burning just the area around the vessels and then applying an ice patch.  This would aid healing greatly.
Answer: Medially speaking, neither is enough on their own, even together.

Fire can cauterise but it has to be targeted. This "profuse" bleeding sounds deep. Unless you can target it, your magician is just going to toast the patient. The bleeding thing needs to be found and fixed, wound packed, held together and covered.
Cold ice can help with vasoconstriction. You're not trying to freeze the wound, just make it cold so all the blood vessels in the immediate area limit the amount of blood they're sending through. Won't help with a profuse bleed (certainly not if arterial pressure) but will help with surface wounds and bruises.
But it's probably just going to kill them quicker if they're already in circulatory shock. Which they probably are. Ice when they're stable, maybe.

With some medical training and sterile equipment your wizard might be able to save a life. Without that they can just make ice cream and hotdogs (so they're not totally useless).
Answer: like most posts above I would have said Fire would be best but then remembered that using modern medicine that ICE might actually be better:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8024991/Patients-to-be-frozen-into-state-of-suspended-animation-for-surgery.html
This allows doctors to cool down patients to around 50 degrees Fahrenheit, putting them in a coma for 60 or 90 minutes, when they may have bled out in minutes otherwise. Although I don't know the particulars (like how much transfusion blood this requires), it seems there could be more value in very select situations where said mage would be better off using some very controlled ice magic over the quicker burn it now approach.
Answer: Why not both? I'm going to take some liberties here. You magician's abilities have progressed at the same pace, instead of one developing later on his/her magical journey of discovery.
With that in mind, your magician would be proficient to the same degree in both schools of magic. Now, in your 'wounded muggle' situation, depending on where the muggle was injured he could approach its in different way. Personally, 'I' would use 'my' ice ability to lower the core temp of the muggle, not in a dangerous way, but as the body is chilled the blood loss should slow. Then depending on where the injury is 'I' would use my fire ability to cauterize the wound.
The other approach would be if your magician had medical training as well. He/she could use his/her magical abilities to speed up medical treatment. He/she could channel a block of ice, then use fire to shape the ice into implements. Obviously the medical tools are made of ice and they would numb the area in question. With the tools he/she would be able to perform field triage and save the Muggle's life. The ability to move around without medical implements then make them when they are needed.

Sealing a wound: ice or fire?


What is the difference between the soul and the spirit in Islam?

Question: I've read about the soul. What does spirit mean? Is there any difference between the soul and the spirit?
Comment: You should ask it on some English forum
Comment: @Mustaghees This is not a linguistic question, native speakers from different religions will give you differing answers.
Comment: After answering this I realized there is a duplicate. We need to close one. See https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18026/is-there-a-distinction-between-ruh-and-nafs-nafas-in-islam?rq=1#comment93384_18026
Answer: The definition of soul is:

The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded
  as immortal.

Spirit is defined as:

The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and
  character; the soul.

Both of them are two synonymous English words that have the same meaning. So, there is no difference between soul and sprit in Islam.
Answer: The soul is the "nufs" in Islam which is the union of body and the spirit "rouh".
When  a person dies there will be the body and the spirit that leaves the body.
Answer: Nafs refers to the soul when it is in a body and Ruh (spirit) refers to the soul when it is outside the body for example in Allah's repository before the angels blow it into the body.
When verses refer to a soul outside the body, the word RUH is used, when they refer to a soul inside the body, nafs is used.

O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Îsa (jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh ) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #171)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle (SAWS), the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."  (Sahih Bukhari, Book #54, Hadith #430)
Answer: This question deserves a comprehensive answer, far deeper than the probable expectation of the OP. So here is a substantial study of soul and spirit in the Quran and Sunnah. I should say I draw upon the explanations by Allama Seyyed Muhammad Hussain Tabataba'i, a great scholar, exegete and mystic of Islam in interpretation of the verses and hadiths. If you want the conclusions of this lengthy analysis skip to the Summary.

In the Quran, the relevant words are either nafs (نفس) or ruh (روح). Nafs in Quranic context means "self" or "person". But there are verses that imply that human self is indeed non-physical, therefore nafs is also usually translated to "soul".

وَ نَفْسٍ وَمَا سَوَّاهَا فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَ
And by nafs and He who proportioned it and inspired it with its vice
  and piety (91:7-8)

The verse means that Allah enlightened the self on what is right and wrong. But since the concept of ilham or inspiration is used, and since inspiration is a spiritual action, we can conclude the self is also non-physical in the eyes of the Quran, so "soul" can also be a fair translation of the Arabic word nafs. Quran also suggests that nafs survives bodily death implying that it is a non-physical thing:

يَوْمَ تَجِدُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَا عَمِلَتْ مِنْ خَيْرٍ مُحْضَرًا وَمَا
  عَمِلَتْ مِنْ سُوءٍ تَوَدُّ لَوْ أَنَّ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَهُ أَمَدًا
  بَعِيدًا وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَاللَّهُ رَءُوفٌ
  بِالْعِبَادِ
The day every nafs will find what it has done of good present and what
  it has done of evil, it will wish that between itself and that [evil]
  was a great distance. And Allah warns you of Himself, and Allah is
  Kind to [His] servants." (3:30)

Now let's look at the context of "ruh" in the Quran which is usually translated to "spirit. In reference to a famous conversation between the non-Muslims and the Prophet (pbuh) who ask him about الروح or "the Spirit" Allah says:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا
  أُوتِيتُمْ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
They ask you of the Spirit, say the Spirit is of my Lord's command.
  (17:85)

Here it is obvious that there is talk of one particular being called "the Spirit" and that which belongs to "the Lord's command". In the light of another relevant Quranic verse that says Allah's command "is only one",

وَمَا أَمْرُنَا إِلَّا وَاحِدَةٌ كَلَمْحٍ بِالْبَصَرِ
And our command is except one, like a flash of eye. (54:50)

and extensive analysis of Quranic verses on amr or "command", Allama Tabatab'i' concludes that the verses correlate with the reference to the spirit in singular form. The Spirit is one, and so is the Divine command that is the source of the Spirit. We shall see another reference to "the Spirit" in Surat al-Qadr.
But now we look at other references to "spirit" in the Quran. There is talk of a "holy spirit" in the Quran who supports Prophet Isa (pbuh):

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَقَفَّيْنَا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ
  بِالرُّسُلِ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ
  وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ...
And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him
  with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and
  supported him with the Holy Spirit... (2:87)

And there is a verse that says Jesus (pbuh) was himself a spirit from Allah:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا
  عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ
  مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ
  وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ...
O people of the Scripture! Do not exceed the limits in your religion,
  nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah Isa, son of Maryam,
  was a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and
  a spirit from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers... (4:171)

Now could this spirit be possibly the same spirit Allah described as "from His command"? And is this the same "holy spirit" that later supported Jesus (pbuh) himself in his ministry?
And there is reference to the Holy spirit bringing down the revelation:

قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِنْ رَبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ
  الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ
Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make
  firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the
  Muslims." (16:102)

And a Trustworthy one doing the same:

وَإِنَّهُ لَتَنْزِيلُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ / نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ
  الْأَمِينُ
And indeed it is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The
  Trustworthy Spirit brought it down.(192-26:193)

These verses suggest that the Trustworthy Spirit and the Holy Spirit are one and the same thing as they are said to carry out the same function of revelation. And we would have to conclude it is the same spirit that supported Prophet Isa (pbuh) as Holy Spirit is also mentioned in Jesus's context.
But these verses also raise the question of whether the Holy or the Trustworthy spirit is the same as Jibra'il, the angel most famously associated with revelation.
But there are verses that distinguish between angels in general and the spirit. In Surat al-Qadr we read:

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّ‌حْمَـٰنِ الرَّ‌حِيمِ إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَاهُ فِى
  لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْرِ ﴿١﴾ وَمَا أَدْرَ‌اكَ مَا لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ ﴿٢﴾
  لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ خَيْرٌ مِّنْ أَلْفِ شَهْرٍ ﴿٣﴾ تَنَزَّلُ
  الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّ‌وحُ فِيهَا بِإِذْنِ رَ‌بِّهِم مِّن كُلِّ
  أَمْرٍ ﴿٤﴾ سَلَامٌ هِىَ حَتَّىٰ مَطْلَعِ الْفَجْرِ ﴿٥﴾
Indeed, We sent the Qur'an down during the Night of Decree. (1) And
  what can make you know what is the Night of Decree? (2) The Night of
  Decree is better than a thousand months. (3) The angels and the Spirit
  descend therein by permission of their Lord with all command. (4)
  Peace it is until the emergence of dawn. (5)

Here Allah says angels descend along with the Spirit. This apparently suggests that spirit is different than all other angels including Jibra'il. Also note the association with amr or command. In Surat an-Nahl there is a similar clue:

يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ بِالرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَىٰ مَنْ يَشَاءُ
  مِنْ عِبَادِهِ ...
He descends the angels by (or with) the Spirit from
  His command upon everyone from His servants He wishes... (16:2)

Hadiths by Imams of Ahl al-Bayt confirm that the Spirit is different from Gabriel and all other angels. In a narration from Usul al-Kafi of Sheikh Kulaini, a Shia hadith collector we read a conversation between Imam Jafar Sadiq and a companion:

٧٢١ / ٣. عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسى ، عَنْ
  يُونُسَ ، عَنِ ابْنِ مُسْكَانَ ، عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ ، قَالَ : سَأَلْتُ
  أَبَا عَبْدِ اللهِ عليه‌السلام عَنْ قَوْلِ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ : (
  يَسْئَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي ) [٣].
قَالَ : « خَلْقٌ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ جَبْرَئِيلَ وَمِيكَائِيلَ ، كَانَ مَعَ
  رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله‌وسلم ، وَهُوَ مَعَ الْأَئِمَّةِ ،
  وَهُوَ مِنَ الْمَلَكُوتِ ». [٤]
Abi Basir said I asked Aba Abd Allah (Jafar as-Sadiq, peace be upon
  him)  about Allah's saying: "They ask you of the Spirit, say the
  Spirit is of my Lord's command." He said: "It is a creature greater
  than Jibra'il and Mika'il. And it was with the Messenger of Allah (ص)
  and it is with the Imams (of Ahl al-Bayt) and it is from Malakut
  (Heavens). (source)

So it is very likely that the Spirit is one and the same thing with the Holy Spirit and that it somehow accompanies Jibra'il and other angels during their tasks. It also accompanies the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt according to Shia authorities.
And then there is talk of a spirit or spirits that particularly supports the pious believers:

لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ
  يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءَهُمْ
  أَوْ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ أُولَئِكَ
  كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الْإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوحٍ مِنْهُ
  وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ
  فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ أُولَئِكَ حِزْبُ
  اللَّهِ أَلَا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ ﴿۲۲﴾
You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day
  having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if
  they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their
  kindred. Those - He has decreed within their hearts faith and
  supported them with a spirit from Him. And We will admit them to gardens
  beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally. Allah is
  pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him - those are the party
  of Allah. Unquestionably, the party of Allah - they are the
  successful. (58:22)

In the light of the above survey, we see that in all contexts "spirit" is usually associated with such functions as divine inspiration, revelation, support and intervention.
The latter verses are distinct in that they use an indefinite article to refer to 'spirit' implying that it can be different from the Holy Spirit that inspires the Prophet (pbuh). I will come back to this apparent distinction later, after one last distinguished context that talks about spirit in the Quran and that would be the human creation story:

فَإِذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِي فَقَعُوا لَهُ
  سَاجِدِينَ
And when I proportioned him and breathed into him of My spirit,
  they fell down to him in prostration. (15:29)

This verse is important in that it says spirit was breathed into Adam and once it was breathed into him angels fell in prostration. So it indicates that Adam had at least a share of Allah's spirit that imbued him with a noble quality that invoked angels' respect.
In this verse human faculties arise after Allah blows into Adam His spirit:

ثُمَّ سَوَّاهُ وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِهِ ۖ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ
  وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ ۚ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ
Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His spirit
  and made for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you
  grateful. (32:9)

These verses are important in that they highlight the spirit's role in creation and their association with consciousness. Adam's creation via Divine spirit parallels the story of Prophet Isa's birth who is described as "a spirit from Him [Allah]". Here, also, spirit is used in singular form.
More information about "spirit" is contained in the hadiths by Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (pbut). These hadiths also have particular references to exclusively Shia beliefs but the additional information that they offer on the Spirit is basically consistent with information from the Quran:

عَنْ جابر عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عليه‌السلام ، قَالَ : سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ
  عِلْمِ الْعَالِمِ ، فَقَالَ لِي : « يَا جَابِرُ ، إِنَّ فِي
  الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالْأَوْصِيَاءِ خَمْسَةَ أَرْوَاحٍ : رُوحَ الْقُدُسِ ،
  وَرُوحَ الْإِيمَانِ ، وَرُوحَ الْحَيَاةِ ، وَرُوحَ الْقُوَّةِ ،
  وَرُوحَ الشَّهْوَةِ ، فَبِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ يَا جَابِرُ ، عَرَفُوا [١]
  مَا تَحْتَ الْعَرْشِ إِلى مَا تَحْتَ الثَّرى [٢] ».
Jabir said I asked Abi Jafar (Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, peace be upon him) about knowledge
  of the knowledgeable, and he told me: O Jabir! In Prophets and Vicegerents
  there are five spirits: the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of faith, the
  Spirit of life, the Spirit of power, and the Spirit of desire. And by
  the Holy Spirit they know whatever is under the Throne all the way to
  what is under the dust.
ثُمَّ قَالَ : « يَا جَابِرُ ، إِنَّ هذِهِ الْأَرْبَعَةَ أَرْوَاحٌ
  يُصِيبُهَا الْحَدَثَانُ [٣] إِلاَّ رُوحَ الْقُدُسِ ؛ فَإِنَّهَا لَا
  تَلْهُو [٤] وَلَاتَلْعَبُ ». [٥]  (source)
Then said: O Jabir, these four spirits are affected by incidences
  except the Holy Spirit who doesn't act in vain or play.
عَنِ الْمُفَضَّلِ بْنِ عُمَرَ : عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللهِ عليه‌السلام ،
  قَالَ : سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ عِلْمِ الْإِمَامِ [٢] بِمَا [٣] فِي أَقْطَارِ
  الْأَرْضِ وَهُوَ فِي بَيْتِهِ مُرْخًى [٤] عَلَيْهِ سِتْرُهُ. فَقَالَ :
  « يَا مُفَضَّلُ ، إِنَّ اللهَ ـ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالى ـ جَعَلَ فِي
  النَّبِيِّ صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله‌وسلم [٥] خَمْسَةَ أَرْوَاحٍ : رُوحَ
  الْحَيَاةِ ، فَبِهِ دَبَّ وَدَرَجَ [٦] ؛ وَرُوحَ الْقُوَّةِ ، فَبِهِ
  نَهَضَ [٧] وَجَاهَدَ ؛ وَرُوحَ الشَّهْوَةِ ، فَبِهِ أَكَلَ وَشَرِبَ
  وَأَتَى النِّسَاءَ مِنَ الْحَلَالِ ؛ وَرُوحَ الْإِيمَانِ ، فَبِهِ
  آمَنَ [٨] وَعَدَلَ ؛ وَرُوحَ الْقُدُسِ ، فَبِهِ حَمَلَ النُّبُوَّةَ ؛
  فَإِذَا قُبِضَ النَّبِيُّ صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله‌وسلم انْتَقَلَ رُوحُ
  الْقُدُسِ ، فَصَارَ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ ، وَرُوحُ الْقُدُسِ لَايَنَامُ
  وَلَايَغْفُلُ [٩] وَلَايَلْهُو وَلَايَزْهُو [١٠] ، وَالْأَرْبَعَةُ
  الْأَرْوَاحِ تَنَامُ وَتَغْفُلُ وَتَزْهُو وَتَلْهُو [١١] ، وَرُوحُ
  الْقُدُسِ كَانَ [١] يَرى بِهِ [٢] ». وفي البصائر : « و روح القدس ثابت
  يرى به ما في شرق الأرض وغربها ، وبرّها وبحرها.
Mufazzal ibn Umar said I asked Abi Abd Allah (Imam Jafar Sadiq) about
  awareness of the Imam about everything around the Earth while he is
  covered in his home. He said: O Mufazzal, Allah the Merciful and the
  High, put five spirits in the Prophet (pbuh): the spirit of life by
  which he moves and walks, the spirit of power by which he rises and
  struggles, the spirit of desire by which he eats, drinks, make lawful
  wives, and the spirit of faith by which he finds faith and acts
  justly, and the Holy Spirit by which he carries the prophethood. And
  once the Prophet dies, the Holy Spirit moves to the Imam, and the Holy
  Spirit doesn't sleep or forget or act in vain or arrogance, and by the
  Holy Spirit he sees. (source)

What is said of the Holy Spirit's relation to the Prophet of Islam in these hadiths is consistent with what Quran says of the Holy Spirit. Another hadith says that all spirits except the Holy Spirit exist in the the faithful, "the people of the right hand":

وَجَعَلَ فِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ـ أَصْحَابِ [٥] الْمَيْمَنَةِ ـ رُوحَ
  الْإِيمَانِ ، فَبِهِ خَافُوا اللهَ ؛ وَجَعَلَ فِيهِمْ رُوحَ الْقُوَّةِ
  ، فَبِهِ قَدَرُوا [٦] عَلى طَاعَةِ اللهِ ؛ وَجَعَلَ فِيهِمْ رُوحَ
  الشَّهْوَةِ ، فَبِهِ اشْتَهَوْا طَاعَةَ اللهِ ؛ وَجَعَلَ فِيهِمْ رُوحَ
  الْمَدْرَجِ الَّذِي بِهِ يَذْهَبُ النَّاسُ وَيَجِيئُونَ [٧] ». [٨]
And Allah put in the believers, the people of the right hand, the
  spirit of faith by which they fear Allah, and spirit of power by which
  they are enabled to obey Allah, and spirit of desire by which they
  desire obedience of Allah, and the spirit of motion by which they come
  and go.

These spirits that are commonly found in believers parallel the Quranic verses that mention Allah's support for believers by "a spirit from him".
Summmary
Considering all these verses and hadiths, we may conclude the following points about the Spirit, nafs and the spirits:

Spirit is a force of life, knowledge and power which are the most essential Divine attributes. Allah manifests His wills via this lofty creature.
Spirit is a singular encompassing being that has many emanations, levels and appearances, permeating all living beings from angels all the way to animals and plants giving them life and consciousness. That's why the Spirit can be referenced in plural or indefinite voice despite its ultimate unity, and this is the basis of multiple kinds of spirit in Quran and hadiths.
The Spirit in its full nature is the embodiment of Allah's Beautiful Names, and that's why Adam could learn all those names when angels couldn't; for Adam was the full embodiment of the Spirit.
From the above we also understand that the Spirit in its lofty levels manifest in prophets, saints and angels. In these cases the spirit is usually described as "holy" because in its lofty stations it doesn't mix with inferior creatures or ordinary human souls.
The lower levels of the Spirit manifest itself in all worldly living beings. Human soul or nafs and its faculties such as mind, senses and desires are lowermost manifestations of the spirit. This is corroborated by the verse that says Allah created humans from "nafsin wahida", a single nafs, but we know that we all have our own individual nafs. So it has to be that the Soul despite its unity can have multiple (indeed infinite) manifestations, and human  souls are the multiple manifestations of the one Spirit. Hence humans can be said to be from one nafs despite being many.

هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهَا
  زَوْجَهَا لِيَسْكُنَ إِلَيْهَا
It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate
  that he might dwell in security with her (7:189)

However, like said, not all individuals can fully incarnate the Spirit. Only Prophets and Awliya can achieve this. Not even angels can fully incarnate the Spirit as they have admitted that they have a fixed station:

"وَمَا مِنَّا إِلَّا لَهُ مَقَامٌ مَعْلُومٌ (164) وَإِنَّا لَنَحْنُ
  الصَّافُّونَ (165)"
There is not of us except with a defined station. And indeed we are in
  ranks.

That's why Adam is superior to them and that's why they needed to prostrate before him. That's also why the Prophet of Islam could excel over Jibra'il in his spiritual ascension Miraj.
It is by the gradual and modest outplay of the Spirit that creatures are enlivened with life through the normal process of procreation and growth in the world, whereas it is by its forceful and special manifestation that miracles take place such as conception of Prophet Isa (pbuh) in Lady Maryam (pbus) without human intercourse, or enlivening of the Moses's stick or the Jesus's clay bird statue. The case of Jesus literally blowing his breath to enliven a clay bird indicates that even human natural breath is a manifestation of the Divine spirit which enlivened Adam. But Jesus' breath in particular carries particularly mighty levels of the Spirit enabling it to give life to dead objects.

The above account of the spirit whose basic outline has been presented by Allama Tabataba'i has admittedly deeply fascinated me for its explanatory power and far reaching implications. In it I also see parallels with some aspects of the Christian account of the Holy Spirit and its unity with God and Jesus (apart from its wrongful deification of Jesus and connotations for trinity), the concept of Atman and its relation to Brahman in Hindu Religion, the New Age concept of Universal Consciousness, and the Cosmic Consciousness postulated by some psychologists who study religious experience. The concepts coming from different cultures and groups seem to be attempts to express encounter with an all-encompassing life force with similar characteristics.
Thanks to Allah for relaying us His wisdom via His Prophets and Saints
Answer: Spirit is what Allah swt blew into human which is life and intelligence within the body.
During life time human use their intellect ( nafs) to protect this spirit.
The resulting features of his spirit is the soul which leaves the body at the time of death.
In short he comes with pure spirit and the soul is that spirit altered by his intellect/  nafs


Does high air pressure throw off wheel balance?

Question: The tire shop balanced my tires at 41 psi, when my recommended psi is 30. I have since lowered it to specification, but would this throw off the balance?
Answer: No. Balance is caused by even weight distributed around a tire.
If there is more weight in one spot the tire will "wobble" when spun.
Inflating a tire more may alter the diameter, but the weight of the tyre itself is still in the same relative place.
Comment: In *theory*, it is possible though. Imagine a tire with a hole in the thrad such that inflating it will cause the inner tube to expand in a balloon-like shape there (this does therefore not apply to normal (tube-less) car tires and you won't want this to happen anyway for obvious reasons, but was an often used gag in old black-and-white movies), the symmetry of the weight is influenced by inflating.
Comment: @HagenvonEitzen have you weighed a balloon? Even includig the balloon it is probably less than a wheel weight....
Answer: It won't affect wheel balance, but high tyre pressures will give you a much harder ride, so any bumps & stones etc.. even smaller ones may well be felt through the steering wheel and come across as vibration. Lower the tyre pressures to the correct specs, if you still feel that there is a balance issue just have the shop re-check the balance for you.