For an example to back up our point: think skyboxes in video games. After a certain ditance away you would cease to notice any of the depth of an image, especially if your reference point is essentially fixed. This system simulates a skybox with 2D textures (and could theoretically have closer 3D objects as well) outside your window, which for the most part is good enough.
I'm sure if you were building the thing from scratch you would probably capture your own footage too.
At first, I was thinking "if it's convenient to get a view of the Eiffel Tower (or some other landmark), why do you need this?"
Then I realized, this could be a nice way to replace your view of that adjacent highrise in your apartment in Paris (or wherever the heck you live) without being pretentious (hey, come to my apartment in Omaha, my window looks over the Rhine...)
For some missions, the ability for humans to adapt and change more easily is a very large benefit. Also, if we can get the humans controling rovers (like on Mars) to not have an 8-13 minute radio delay, the rover can spend less time getting stuck and more time moving.
I'm with you that we should continue to do the vast majority of our exploration and science with unmanned probes (Cassini, STEREO, and Phoenix are good examples where humans would be rubbish). However, I disagree that abandoning human exploration is the way to go. We need to do more interesting and useful manned science. Instead of just chilling in LEO, we need to go to Mars (for example) and get something useful done. Something where the mission is fluid and can be changed. Let the astronauts pilot a rover in real-time from orbit which can be returned to Earth control afterward. The PR boost is something that the same amount of cash spent on probes, satellites, and telescopes would never generate, and we have the potential to perform science while we're at it. Win-win?
It would be even cooler if I could get Google Maps on my phone with turn-by-turn directions, but who would do that? Google would probably have to write their own phone OS, so I guess we're out of luck. Oh well, I can dream...
Agreed, for as simple and pointless as that game was, I had so much fun free driving around that scaled-down Chicago in a user created A-Team van. I say, bring it on!
Plus, Google has all the map data to know where there are stop lights and where there aren't, the prevailing speed of traffic, and even the most likely places for a traffic jam. Imagine if your driving game had real-time traffic jams while you are street racing around the DC beltway at 5PM on a Friday.
I can agree that science performed during manned space missions is expensive, but nonexistent!?
So, how do you quantify human long-term weightless physiology? Unless we can unequivocally say that humans will never ever need to go into space, that's useful science. Even if we never have a need, I see no need to classify it 'useless'. I can't think of any 'use' for measuring the CBR, beyond science for science's sake, so why not human exploration for its own sake?
Also note that humans were the first to return soil and rock samples from the moon, and the engineering benefits of all space flight (both manned and unmanned).
There is no compelling reason to support manned space exploration. Anything that can be done in space by a person can be done at far lower expense, with far greater scope, ambition and achievement, and over a much longer period of time with robotic equipment.
However, humans are more versitile than a robot. They are jacks or all trade, and masters of none, compared to robots. Thus, if you intend to perform a series of diverse experiments, you send humans. If you intend to perform several specific, well defined tasks, then a robot is best.
Abandoning manned spaceflight not only puts a restriction on mission versitility (humans can learn to perform tasks if needed, robots can not,yet) which would need to be overcome by robotics engineers before your argument has merit, it also means we fail to learn about human physiology and psychology as it pertains to human space flight (important if we ever need/want to live anywhere other than the earth).
Manned space exploration is a gimmick whose sole use is the transfer of taxpayer dollars to corrupt defense industrialists, nothing more. It is sold to a hapless, gullible public by equally corrupt politicians and ex-astronauts. It is nothing but childish dreaming by sci fi space adventure magical religious cultists.
Yes, I'm sure sobody was inspired to begin a career in science or engineering by images of human space flight. In your ideal world we wouldn't need to go to extraordinary measures to get people excited about science, but that's not the world we live in.
If the progress of science is really your concern, then we should do more interesting human space exploration, not less. Think of NASA's budget as 10% science, 90% public outreach.
I see it differently. Freedom of speech is the freedom from government intervention preventing you from expressing your opinion. It has nothing to do with other private citizens. Thus, it is freedom from legal consequences (in most cases, see harassment, fighting words, slander, etc), not from social or personal consequences.
Put another way, you are free to say offensive things, not free from people being offended by what you say.
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this;
If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any punishable law under the guise of anonymity on the internet. This is of course impracticle, so throw that idea out of the window.
Actually, I believe that's exactly what he intends: that a person on the internet has no right to privacy if they are believed to have committed a crime.
That said, I know in the US the courts are not required to prosecute every potential crime, so it would hardly be impractical. Just take the cases as they come.
Actually, it's a fine excuse, and used all the time in court. It's hard to get a criminal conviction without mens rea - the criminal intent.
Well, back on topic, I don't think that doesn't apply to the story in the Garden. Adam was told not to eat the fruit in the middle of the garden, Eve knew that as well, and both knew the consequences. Perhaps they didn't do it with malice (as in, to spite God), but that simply would have changed the charge (were this a criminal trial). Yet, sin requires no intent to commit (Romans 7), and again we fortunately can be forgiven.
You would assume wrong in many cases. While people are born gender-incongruent, the environmental pressures to deny it, to suppress it, and to conform to "norms" are strong. Transsexuals don't see surgery as changing their sex so much as affirming their sex and correcting a mistake. For anyone to say to a transsexual woman "you're a man" is not just an insult, it was also never true.
... and we now know that the part of the brain that controls your gender identity is associated with a specific area of your brain, and that a gene in m2f transsexuals doesn't activate fully in the presence of testosterone, leading to less or no functional differentiation in that part of the brain from the default female configuration, and results in gender incongruity - and it starts in the womb in the 1st trimester. Transsexuals are born, not made, and it all has to do with prenatal hormones and the fetus' genetic makeup.
Obviously, I am not an expert in gender incongruity or the conditions which cause it. I'm willing to admit that I'm probably totally off-base with some of my assumptions. That said, I still think my initial assessment (though slightly burried) is reasonable for a transgender relationship: it's probably equivalent to a homosexual relationship for one or the other.
You wouldn't like it. But worse, you wouldn't like being forced to conform to something you aren't. And yet christians are always telling other christians that they cannot get a sex change, it's wrong, they need to "pray it away". Of course, it can't be done - they were MADE that way. It would be like asking someone to pray to change their skin or eye color.
Here is where I will readily admit: I have no clue. If we're talking a physical condition with a mental manifestation (inability to produce a hormone, etc), then that's beyond my knowledge. They would have to study themselves and preferably with someone who has studied this topic specifically. I wouldn't hold it against them if they had done so and were convinced it was not a sin. On the contrary, are you aware what proportion (if any) of gender uncertainty has no known physical cause?
All that said, even assuming it is a sin, I wouldn't call it unforgiveable, though I would again need to defer to someone who has actually studied this topic. Personally, I have other topics of more personal importance that I spend my time with, though I'm glad you've piqued my interest.
Should she disclose to you that she was raped and beaten by the last man she was in love with when she told him? Or that her family rejects her because they put their religious dogma over any family ties? Or that they put up with years of being bullied in school?
This is actually a topic of debate - the whole "when do you tell" question. But what I am asking is, how would you know, and what would you do if, after you were married, you found out that the person you love had had a sex change? "What god has joined, let no man put asunder."
I think that level of trust and love to let each other into your secret life is important. Why should you not tell your husband/wife not tell you? Either they think it's unimportant (which perhaps covers your bullying and such), they don't trust you (huge red flag), or they are deliberately attempting to mislead you. This is all important if you a
That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful.
And this is one of the reasons I finally rejected christianity - when man's laws are both more compassionate, more just, and more reasonable than gods, god can take a long walk off a short peer. We do not condemn people for doing things they didn't know were wrong. You didn't know the mushrooms were poisonous, we don't throw you in jail for murder. You didn't know that the brakes would fail, we don't hold you responsible for killing someone with your Toyota. You didn't know that the person was allergic to peanut butter, we don't charge you with assault with a deadly weapon for spreading their jam with the same knife.
Of course we punish people for commiting crimes they didn't know were committing! Haven't you heard? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Beyond that, intent isn't always taken into account: note involuntary manslaughter is a crime. As for justice, we have DAs prosecuting teens on child porn and statutory rape charges when both are under age, often resulting in being registered sex offenders.
Both heard God's command (do not eat of the tree in the middle of the garden) and the consequences (you will die), yet ate it anyways. Whether or not they knew disobedience was wrong, they still disobeyed. Your examples show ignorance of the cause and effect, while Eve and Adam were not ignorant of God's command. If your Toyota example referred to someone who drove his car even after a mechanic told him not to because the brake cable would snap, you better believe he's getting manslaughter if he kills somebody.
What happens with a transsexual who is also a believer?
Should the church consider it okay for her to marry a man, since she is legally a woman, even though genetically she is XY? Or is this a "same-sex wedding" in god's eyes?
I will assume they became a transsexual before they became a believer, as I doubt a (strong) believer would undergo 'gender reassignment'.
Firstly, what the state says doesn't enter into it. Do they have XY? They are a man, end of story, regardless of what they do with surgery and hormones. As you said, God sees the hidden places and formed us in the womb. I also doubt he very much likes 'gender reassignment' for this reason.
As for whether it is a sin for them (for example, XY transgender male and XX female) to marry, I don't think so. I think any sin would have been the 'gender reassignment', but if they have been forgiven for that I can't think of any sin they would be committing in marriage (since my reading of 'sodomy' refers to actual gender, not sex organs), although I think a case could be made against sexual attraction to someone who looks like a member of your own gender (which could be a sin for the non-transgender person).
If they should marry is another matter. I can think of two verses (conveniently adjacent) off the top of my head which would provide guidance. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, speaking of whether it is wrong to take the virginity of an older woman.
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
My thought is that wrt transsexuals, they would be better to stay unmarried if both they and their significant other have agreed that it is best. However, if they are unable to control other sexual sins without being married (which we assume is
I don't see how that's relevent. We're talking about secure systems that require physical access and login credentials. Also, security cameras, possible card swipe access or keys, and other security measures. It's possible (in theory) to get in and steal something without leaving a trace, but it's highly unlikely.
USB drives are the most likely way to get info off a classified machine, which is precisely why they're forbidden.
If you manage to do this you then need a dope slap because you can always use ssh or even plain email to get files out. Then what about the occasion where you need usb drives.
This is almost certainly aimed at preventing classified information leaks. Machines with classified information are not connected to any network containing unclassified machines, and definitely not the internet. Even if it were connected, sending that e-mail leaves a record of the transmission, meaning the spy can be easily identified.
USB drives are the most likely way to get info off a classified machine, which is precisely why they're forbidden. There is no legitimate occasion where a USB drive is needed in this case.
So then you'd be a proponent of same-sex marriage, to "reduce the amount of sin in the world", right? BTW, we have same-sex marriage here and the country didn't descend into hell - quite the contrary.
As far as my religious belief, there is no such thing as a gay marriage. A marriage is one man and one woman. As such, any sex between two people of the same gender is adultry because it is outside the confines of marriage. Thus, there is still the same sin, and I don't believe the Church should condone a relationship based on sin.
That said, I don't think that simply commiting adultry is reason to be kicked out or extricated from the church. Everyone sins, and everyone who asks is forgiven. So the only problem is when the church says "this lifestyle of adultry is acceptable in these circumstances" when it condones gay marriage. It turns the proper perspective of 'I am sinful, but try not to be' on its head, making it 'I am planning to continue sining, and I don't care'.
Outside of my church and my religion, I have no objection to gay marriages or civil unions, since they don't follow the same purpose or requirements. I don't even think that state recognized civil unions need to be between people 'in love', just two people with an exclusive connection for legal and tax purposes.
Now about that command from god - "do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - how could you know it was evil, or wrong, to do so unless you already had the knowledge of good and evil? There's no "boot-strap".
Its why, for example, when we let minors testify in court, we first question them so that we're sure they understand what telling the truth involves, and why they should - "because it's wrong not to."
Seems to me the only one to blame here is god for releasing a model with incomplete software a la Toyota.
Well, I believe God knew that it was going to happen. I don't think God truly intended for us to be little naiive automatons, we were meant to have free will to choose to do good or evil, so as to bring honor to him when we do good. That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful. However, that doesn't change an outside analysis of whether it was, in fact, wrong.
It comes down to your point of view as to how you feel about this. I assume you consider the Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" perspective correct.
Plus there's so much that has poisoned the well of social interaction. For example, the continual condemnation of lesbians and gays, even though we know it's no more a "lifestyle choice" than being straight is a "lifestyle choice."
And of course, that vilification would be another example of those choosing what they want to believe, then finding the verses to back it up.
As far as my understanding, there is only one right circumstance for sex, and that is between a man and his wife. Anything else would be adultry, whether it be with another of the same sex, a child, a prostitute, otherwise out of wedlock, or even imagining having sex with someone who you aren't married to. None is worse than any other, all are sins, so I hardly agree with the extra villification heaped on homosexuals. I don't even have a problem with a gay man in the clergy, provided they are celibate and therefor not institutionalizing their sin as normal (though many churches disagree, both more and less strict).
The first crack was the slaughter of the children depicted in the old testament on god's command. There was no way, despite every effort, of justifying that - hence the whole "cognitive dissonance" thing. Even the devil wasn't as bad.
I believe we're all sinful, and thus all deserve to die, even children. It was only through grace in the first place that God had allowed them to continue in the first place (even going back to the Garden, where Adam and Eve deserved death for breaking their only command from God). God chose the Israelites and didn't punish them as they deserved (usually, they frequently turned away and were punished as well). It's harsh, but just, though I definitely see it as a difficult passage to understand.
That said, I'm glad I live in the New Testament time, where forgiveness is freely given.
Try Association Football (soccer for us in America), since match fixing actually is a big problem in many leagues (I've not heard of NFL match fixing being common, though perhaps I missed it). We're talking arrests in Europe for Footballers who threw matches.
Except that it's not true. Google provides a very good user experience. It just happens not to screw its developers over.
That's not to say Google can't have a good user experience, only that the user experience will never stand in the way of developer freedoms. In general, if there's a poor UI choice or something is confusing or convoluted, it's probably because Google gave the developers the freedom to create such a bad interface. Contrast with Apple who disapproves applications for the iPhone whose icons don't meet their standards.
So, how can you say yu believe it if you haven't read all of it?
Because, for the most part, the sections I have not read have no bearing on my belief (family trees, recounting battles, etc). In that light, I prefer having good comprehension over an ever increasing portion of the Bible, rather than having simply 'read' every word just to say I did it. I do continue to read, however, and have yet to find something that makes me disbelieve in God. I have certainly come accross passages that change my understanding of who He is, usually due to having a shallow or blatantly incorrect understanding previously.
Disclaimer: I have read all of it, multiple times. It's one of the reasons I could not continue to believe it. Too many contradictions were self-evident, and it required more intellectual dishonesty than I could muster to continue to believe. In the end, I saw it for what it was - a bunch of stories put together by people who were pushing disparate agendas.
If I could find the time to read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation while still being able to meaningfully comprehend it, I would. However you found the time to do it, I envy you.
It's a shame you felt it required you to comprimise your thought processes to justify some bits. I'd be interested to hear which areas in particular they were.
Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
People will choose based on what is important to them.
That's the most succinct and accurate synopsis of these two companies I've ever seen. Give this man a cookie.
One could have said similar things about consumer smart phones before the iPhone was released. I don't think anyone would have predicted before the iPhone release that we'd have 50 million iPhones sold, plus tens of millions of other devices riding off of its popularity, many powered by Google's mobile OS. Four years ago, something like the iPhone would have been called "pointless consumer electronics" too, pointing out the failure of the PDA market. I see no reason why we couldn't see a repeat in the tablet market.
I have no doubt Google has at the very least explored a direct rival in the tablet space.
Don't you believe it. Even Mother Theresa admitted she hadn't read it all,
There's a difference between reading it to say you read it, reading cover-to-cover, reading for purpose or meaning, and reading for comprehension. They are neither mutually exclusive nor equivalent.
I haven't read the Bible end-to-end, but I've read the Gospels multiple times, and most of the epistles (1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans in particular) dozens of times. Why? Because those books are more important to my every day life than, for example, Numbers and its list of genealogies.
While I agree that there are many Christians who don't put forth any effort to read the Bible, or who take it out of context to push an agenda, I don't think the mere act of reading every word once is significant. What's more important is reading regularly for comprehension and spending further study on passages that challenge previous understanding. You know, putting your faith under scrutiny.
Of course, I was raised Lutheran, so I may be an outlier.
Aside from expanding ad infinitum the group as we discover additional, yet relatively insignificant, objects, nothing.
Personally, I'm in favor of saying 4 rocky planets, 4 gas giants, and 6+ dwarf planets. The dwarf planets can then be studied as a group by those who do not have time to study them individually, such as children.
If they had been turn-based and allowed for a bit more freedom, they would have been perfect for the time. Modern remake, following Battle Tech and Mech Warrior tabletop rules please?
Slashdot Mirror
For an example to back up our point: think skyboxes in video games. After a certain ditance away you would cease to notice any of the depth of an image, especially if your reference point is essentially fixed. This system simulates a skybox with 2D textures (and could theoretically have closer 3D objects as well) outside your window, which for the most part is good enough.
I'm sure if you were building the thing from scratch you would probably capture your own footage too.
At first, I was thinking "if it's convenient to get a view of the Eiffel Tower (or some other landmark), why do you need this?"
Then I realized, this could be a nice way to replace your view of that adjacent highrise in your apartment in Paris (or wherever the heck you live) without being pretentious (hey, come to my apartment in Omaha, my window looks over the Rhine...)
For some missions, the ability for humans to adapt and change more easily is a very large benefit. Also, if we can get the humans controling rovers (like on Mars) to not have an 8-13 minute radio delay, the rover can spend less time getting stuck and more time moving.
I'm with you that we should continue to do the vast majority of our exploration and science with unmanned probes (Cassini, STEREO, and Phoenix are good examples where humans would be rubbish). However, I disagree that abandoning human exploration is the way to go. We need to do more interesting and useful manned science. Instead of just chilling in LEO, we need to go to Mars (for example) and get something useful done. Something where the mission is fluid and can be changed. Let the astronauts pilot a rover in real-time from orbit which can be returned to Earth control afterward. The PR boost is something that the same amount of cash spent on probes, satellites, and telescopes would never generate, and we have the potential to perform science while we're at it. Win-win?
It would be even cooler if I could get Google Maps on my phone with turn-by-turn directions, but who would do that? Google would probably have to write their own phone OS, so I guess we're out of luck. Oh well, I can dream...
Agreed, for as simple and pointless as that game was, I had so much fun free driving around that scaled-down Chicago in a user created A-Team van. I say, bring it on!
Plus, Google has all the map data to know where there are stop lights and where there aren't, the prevailing speed of traffic, and even the most likely places for a traffic jam. Imagine if your driving game had real-time traffic jams while you are street racing around the DC beltway at 5PM on a Friday.
I can agree that science performed during manned space missions is expensive, but nonexistent!?
So, how do you quantify human long-term weightless physiology? Unless we can unequivocally say that humans will never ever need to go into space, that's useful science. Even if we never have a need, I see no need to classify it 'useless'. I can't think of any 'use' for measuring the CBR, beyond science for science's sake, so why not human exploration for its own sake?
Also note that humans were the first to return soil and rock samples from the moon, and the engineering benefits of all space flight (both manned and unmanned).
There is no compelling reason to support manned space exploration. Anything that can be done in space by a person can be done at far lower expense, with far greater scope, ambition and achievement, and over a much longer period of time with robotic equipment.
However, humans are more versitile than a robot. They are jacks or all trade, and masters of none, compared to robots. Thus, if you intend to perform a series of diverse experiments, you send humans. If you intend to perform several specific, well defined tasks, then a robot is best.
Abandoning manned spaceflight not only puts a restriction on mission versitility (humans can learn to perform tasks if needed, robots can not,yet) which would need to be overcome by robotics engineers before your argument has merit, it also means we fail to learn about human physiology and psychology as it pertains to human space flight (important if we ever need/want to live anywhere other than the earth).
Manned space exploration is a gimmick whose sole use is the transfer of taxpayer dollars to corrupt defense industrialists, nothing more. It is sold to a hapless, gullible public by equally corrupt politicians and ex-astronauts. It is nothing but childish dreaming by sci fi space adventure magical religious cultists.
Yes, I'm sure sobody was inspired to begin a career in science or engineering by images of human space flight. In your ideal world we wouldn't need to go to extraordinary measures to get people excited about science, but that's not the world we live in.
If the progress of science is really your concern, then we should do more interesting human space exploration, not less. Think of NASA's budget as 10% science, 90% public outreach.
I see it differently. Freedom of speech is the freedom from government intervention preventing you from expressing your opinion. It has nothing to do with other private citizens. Thus, it is freedom from legal consequences (in most cases, see harassment, fighting words, slander, etc), not from social or personal consequences.
Put another way, you are free to say offensive things, not free from people being offended by what you say.
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this; If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any punishable law under the guise of anonymity on the internet. This is of course impracticle, so throw that idea out of the window.
Actually, I believe that's exactly what he intends: that a person on the internet has no right to privacy if they are believed to have committed a crime.
That said, I know in the US the courts are not required to prosecute every potential crime, so it would hardly be impractical. Just take the cases as they come.
Actually, it's a fine excuse, and used all the time in court. It's hard to get a criminal conviction without mens rea - the criminal intent.
Well, back on topic, I don't think that doesn't apply to the story in the Garden. Adam was told not to eat the fruit in the middle of the garden, Eve knew that as well, and both knew the consequences. Perhaps they didn't do it with malice (as in, to spite God), but that simply would have changed the charge (were this a criminal trial). Yet, sin requires no intent to commit (Romans 7), and again we fortunately can be forgiven.
You would assume wrong in many cases. While people are born gender-incongruent, the environmental pressures to deny it, to suppress it, and to conform to "norms" are strong. Transsexuals don't see surgery as changing their sex so much as affirming their sex and correcting a mistake. For anyone to say to a transsexual woman "you're a man" is not just an insult, it was also never true.
Obviously, I am not an expert in gender incongruity or the conditions which cause it. I'm willing to admit that I'm probably totally off-base with some of my assumptions. That said, I still think my initial assessment (though slightly burried) is reasonable for a transgender relationship: it's probably equivalent to a homosexual relationship for one or the other.
You wouldn't like it. But worse, you wouldn't like being forced to conform to something you aren't. And yet christians are always telling other christians that they cannot get a sex change, it's wrong, they need to "pray it away". Of course, it can't be done - they were MADE that way. It would be like asking someone to pray to change their skin or eye color.
Here is where I will readily admit: I have no clue. If we're talking a physical condition with a mental manifestation (inability to produce a hormone, etc), then that's beyond my knowledge. They would have to study themselves and preferably with someone who has studied this topic specifically. I wouldn't hold it against them if they had done so and were convinced it was not a sin. On the contrary, are you aware what proportion (if any) of gender uncertainty has no known physical cause?
All that said, even assuming it is a sin, I wouldn't call it unforgiveable, though I would again need to defer to someone who has actually studied this topic. Personally, I have other topics of more personal importance that I spend my time with, though I'm glad you've piqued my interest.
Should she disclose to you that she was raped and beaten by the last man she was in love with when she told him? Or that her family rejects her because they put their religious dogma over any family ties? Or that they put up with years of being bullied in school?
This is actually a topic of debate - the whole "when do you tell" question. But what I am asking is, how would you know, and what would you do if, after you were married, you found out that the person you love had had a sex change? "What god has joined, let no man put asunder."
I think that level of trust and love to let each other into your secret life is important. Why should you not tell your husband/wife not tell you? Either they think it's unimportant (which perhaps covers your bullying and such), they don't trust you (huge red flag), or they are deliberately attempting to mislead you. This is all important if you a
It also allows a human to operate the same equipment (such as pod bay doors), should the robot malfunction.
That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful.
And this is one of the reasons I finally rejected christianity - when man's laws are both more compassionate, more just, and more reasonable than gods, god can take a long walk off a short peer. We do not condemn people for doing things they didn't know were wrong. You didn't know the mushrooms were poisonous, we don't throw you in jail for murder. You didn't know that the brakes would fail, we don't hold you responsible for killing someone with your Toyota. You didn't know that the person was allergic to peanut butter, we don't charge you with assault with a deadly weapon for spreading their jam with the same knife.
Of course we punish people for commiting crimes they didn't know were committing! Haven't you heard? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Beyond that, intent isn't always taken into account: note involuntary manslaughter is a crime. As for justice, we have DAs prosecuting teens on child porn and statutory rape charges when both are under age, often resulting in being registered sex offenders.
Both heard God's command (do not eat of the tree in the middle of the garden) and the consequences (you will die), yet ate it anyways. Whether or not they knew disobedience was wrong, they still disobeyed. Your examples show ignorance of the cause and effect, while Eve and Adam were not ignorant of God's command. If your Toyota example referred to someone who drove his car even after a mechanic told him not to because the brake cable would snap, you better believe he's getting manslaughter if he kills somebody.
What happens with a transsexual who is also a believer?
Should the church consider it okay for her to marry a man, since she is legally a woman, even though genetically she is XY? Or is this a "same-sex wedding" in god's eyes?
I will assume they became a transsexual before they became a believer, as I doubt a (strong) believer would undergo 'gender reassignment'.
Firstly, what the state says doesn't enter into it. Do they have XY? They are a man, end of story, regardless of what they do with surgery and hormones. As you said, God sees the hidden places and formed us in the womb. I also doubt he very much likes 'gender reassignment' for this reason.
As for whether it is a sin for them (for example, XY transgender male and XX female) to marry, I don't think so. I think any sin would have been the 'gender reassignment', but if they have been forgiven for that I can't think of any sin they would be committing in marriage (since my reading of 'sodomy' refers to actual gender, not sex organs), although I think a case could be made against sexual attraction to someone who looks like a member of your own gender (which could be a sin for the non-transgender person).
If they should marry is another matter. I can think of two verses (conveniently adjacent) off the top of my head which would provide guidance. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, speaking of whether it is wrong to take the virginity of an older woman.
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
My thought is that wrt transsexuals, they would be better to stay unmarried if both they and their significant other have agreed that it is best. However, if they are unable to control other sexual sins without being married (which we assume is
Machines with classified information are not connected to any network containing unclassified machines, and definitely not the internet.
About that...
In which case, using e-mail or other electronic means to leak classified information still wouldn't work. It would be caught by the CDS.
...the spy can be easily identified.
About that...
I don't see how that's relevent. We're talking about secure systems that require physical access and login credentials. Also, security cameras, possible card swipe access or keys, and other security measures. It's possible (in theory) to get in and steal something without leaving a trace, but it's highly unlikely.
USB drives are the most likely way to get info off a classified machine, which is precisely why they're forbidden.
About that...
Let me clarify, they're banned on classified machines.
If you manage to do this you then need a dope slap because you can always use ssh or even plain email to get files out. Then what about the occasion where you need usb drives.
This is almost certainly aimed at preventing classified information leaks. Machines with classified information are not connected to any network containing unclassified machines, and definitely not the internet. Even if it were connected, sending that e-mail leaves a record of the transmission, meaning the spy can be easily identified.
USB drives are the most likely way to get info off a classified machine, which is precisely why they're forbidden. There is no legitimate occasion where a USB drive is needed in this case.
So then you'd be a proponent of same-sex marriage, to "reduce the amount of sin in the world", right? BTW, we have same-sex marriage here and the country didn't descend into hell - quite the contrary.
As far as my religious belief, there is no such thing as a gay marriage. A marriage is one man and one woman. As such, any sex between two people of the same gender is adultry because it is outside the confines of marriage. Thus, there is still the same sin, and I don't believe the Church should condone a relationship based on sin.
That said, I don't think that simply commiting adultry is reason to be kicked out or extricated from the church. Everyone sins, and everyone who asks is forgiven. So the only problem is when the church says "this lifestyle of adultry is acceptable in these circumstances" when it condones gay marriage. It turns the proper perspective of 'I am sinful, but try not to be' on its head, making it 'I am planning to continue sining, and I don't care'.
Outside of my church and my religion, I have no objection to gay marriages or civil unions, since they don't follow the same purpose or requirements. I don't even think that state recognized civil unions need to be between people 'in love', just two people with an exclusive connection for legal and tax purposes.
Now about that command from god - "do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - how could you know it was evil, or wrong, to do so unless you already had the knowledge of good and evil? There's no "boot-strap".
Its why, for example, when we let minors testify in court, we first question them so that we're sure they understand what telling the truth involves, and why they should - "because it's wrong not to."
Seems to me the only one to blame here is god for releasing a model with incomplete software a la Toyota.
Well, I believe God knew that it was going to happen. I don't think God truly intended for us to be little naiive automatons, we were meant to have free will to choose to do good or evil, so as to bring honor to him when we do good. That said, I don't think Adam nor Eve knew what they did was wrong or sinful. However, that doesn't change an outside analysis of whether it was, in fact, wrong.
It comes down to your point of view as to how you feel about this. I assume you consider the Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" perspective correct.
Plus there's so much that has poisoned the well of social interaction. For example, the continual condemnation of lesbians and gays, even though we know it's no more a "lifestyle choice" than being straight is a "lifestyle choice."
And of course, that vilification would be another example of those choosing what they want to believe, then finding the verses to back it up.
As far as my understanding, there is only one right circumstance for sex, and that is between a man and his wife. Anything else would be adultry, whether it be with another of the same sex, a child, a prostitute, otherwise out of wedlock, or even imagining having sex with someone who you aren't married to. None is worse than any other, all are sins, so I hardly agree with the extra villification heaped on homosexuals. I don't even have a problem with a gay man in the clergy, provided they are celibate and therefor not institutionalizing their sin as normal (though many churches disagree, both more and less strict).
The first crack was the slaughter of the children depicted in the old testament on god's command. There was no way, despite every effort, of justifying that - hence the whole "cognitive dissonance" thing. Even the devil wasn't as bad.
I believe we're all sinful, and thus all deserve to die, even children. It was only through grace in the first place that God had allowed them to continue in the first place (even going back to the Garden, where Adam and Eve deserved death for breaking their only command from God). God chose the Israelites and didn't punish them as they deserved (usually, they frequently turned away and were punished as well). It's harsh, but just, though I definitely see it as a difficult passage to understand.
That said, I'm glad I live in the New Testament time, where forgiveness is freely given.
Try Association Football (soccer for us in America), since match fixing actually is a big problem in many leagues (I've not heard of NFL match fixing being common, though perhaps I missed it). We're talking arrests in Europe for Footballers who threw matches.
Except that it's not true. Google provides a very good user experience. It just happens not to screw its developers over.
That's not to say Google can't have a good user experience, only that the user experience will never stand in the way of developer freedoms. In general, if there's a poor UI choice or something is confusing or convoluted, it's probably because Google gave the developers the freedom to create such a bad interface. Contrast with Apple who disapproves applications for the iPhone whose icons don't meet their standards.
So, how can you say yu believe it if you haven't read all of it?
Because, for the most part, the sections I have not read have no bearing on my belief (family trees, recounting battles, etc). In that light, I prefer having good comprehension over an ever increasing portion of the Bible, rather than having simply 'read' every word just to say I did it. I do continue to read, however, and have yet to find something that makes me disbelieve in God. I have certainly come accross passages that change my understanding of who He is, usually due to having a shallow or blatantly incorrect understanding previously.
Disclaimer: I have read all of it, multiple times. It's one of the reasons I could not continue to believe it. Too many contradictions were self-evident, and it required more intellectual dishonesty than I could muster to continue to believe. In the end, I saw it for what it was - a bunch of stories put together by people who were pushing disparate agendas.
If I could find the time to read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation while still being able to meaningfully comprehend it, I would. However you found the time to do it, I envy you.
It's a shame you felt it required you to comprimise your thought processes to justify some bits. I'd be interested to hear which areas in particular they were.
I'm not sure that's as accurate as you say.
I think "People will buy what they're told to buy" is a better way to put it. Very little "choice" is involved.
In that case, what is important to them is probably "looking cool, just like everyone else".
Oddly enough, that's probably a subset of the 'prefers user experience to developer freedom' group.
Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
People will choose based on what is important to them.
That's the most succinct and accurate synopsis of these two companies I've ever seen. Give this man a cookie.
One could have said similar things about consumer smart phones before the iPhone was released. I don't think anyone would have predicted before the iPhone release that we'd have 50 million iPhones sold, plus tens of millions of other devices riding off of its popularity, many powered by Google's mobile OS. Four years ago, something like the iPhone would have been called "pointless consumer electronics" too, pointing out the failure of the PDA market. I see no reason why we couldn't see a repeat in the tablet market.
I have no doubt Google has at the very least explored a direct rival in the tablet space.
Christian fundies will read the Bible allright.
Don't you believe it. Even Mother Theresa admitted she hadn't read it all,
There's a difference between reading it to say you read it, reading cover-to-cover, reading for purpose or meaning, and reading for comprehension. They are neither mutually exclusive nor equivalent.
I haven't read the Bible end-to-end, but I've read the Gospels multiple times, and most of the epistles (1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans in particular) dozens of times. Why? Because those books are more important to my every day life than, for example, Numbers and its list of genealogies.
While I agree that there are many Christians who don't put forth any effort to read the Bible, or who take it out of context to push an agenda, I don't think the mere act of reading every word once is significant. What's more important is reading regularly for comprehension and spending further study on passages that challenge previous understanding. You know, putting your faith under scrutiny.
Of course, I was raised Lutheran, so I may be an outlier.
What is wrong with 15 planets?
Aside from expanding ad infinitum the group as we discover additional, yet relatively insignificant, objects, nothing.
Personally, I'm in favor of saying 4 rocky planets, 4 gas giants, and 6+ dwarf planets. The dwarf planets can then be studied as a group by those who do not have time to study them individually, such as children.
If they had been turn-based and allowed for a bit more freedom, they would have been perfect for the time. Modern remake, following Battle Tech and Mech Warrior tabletop rules please?