I believe the "only marry one person" command came after Jacob married his two wives and slept with their servants. Loophole!
Of course, some Orthodox Jewish folks I know claim that Abraham kept Kosher even before the laws of keeping Kosher were given because he was just that holy. By that logic, wouldn't Jacob know the "rules of marriage" before they were given?
This exactly. I've been playing a lot of smartphone apps recently. I have no trouble paying something for a game. If they want to release a "lite" version with limited levels, I'm fine with that. It lets you get a feel for the game play and see if you want to spend the cash for the full version. I don't even have a problem with additional level packs costing more money. What I have a problem with are games where you either 1) Need to buy items with the "premium currency" (only obtainable by paying cash) to advance in the game or 2) Need to pay to keep an "energy meter" up. In the latter case, if you limit how much I play your game, you are just making it more likely that I'll play another game, not pay you money.
As an example of a game-gone-wrong, I'd submit Where's My Water. The first game was pretty good. There was a lite version, a paid version, and additional level packs you could buy. Then Where's My Water 2 came out. At first, they had an energy meter, but they got rid of that when people complained. My big issue? Keys. You can only obtain keys by 1) buying them or 2) bugging people on social media. If you don't do that, you can't proceed along the map. If you buy the keys, you will just get stuck at the next gate that requires more keys. So you aren't even buying "the full version", you are buying "the next level or two." The end result? I don't even have that app on my phone anymore.
I don't begrudge game developers from making money, but it's a fine line between encouraging payments and annoying people too much.
Jacob even married two sisters. In his defense, he was "tricked" into marrying the older sister when he wanted to marry the younger one, but then they got into a competition over who would give Jacob more kids and had Jacob sleep with their handmaidens so he could impregnate them and their kids would count towards the appropriate sisters' totals.
If someone did that today, they'd be tried for bigamy ASAP and "I was tricked into the first marriage" or "We just wanted more kids" wouldn't be any defense at all. You need to be very careful when chastising any historical figure (be they from religious texts or from history) based on modern day social rules/laws.
My son has autism and we never gave him any homeopathic treatments..... Wait a second, don't homeopathic treatments get more potent the less of them that there is? So taking none would have an infinite effect! That must be it. Quick, everyone! Take some homeopathic treatments before we overdose on homeopathic treatments.
If they are selling something as a remedy to an ailment, they MUST get FDA approval. They can't simply say "well we don't have the budget so we won't do that."
Airborne got in trouble for that. They sold their product as a cure for the common cold, but didn't have FDA approval. They are still selling it, but they need to be careful to not state that it cures or treats anything. They now claim it is a "nutritional supplement."
Perhaps people oppose Monsanto because of this tactic:
1) Claim a patent on seeds Monsanto makes. 2) Get some farmers to buy the seeds. 2 a) Lock the farmers in by stipulating that they can't take any seeds the plant produces and plant them again next year... like people have done for thousands of years! 3) Find a nearby farmer who isn't buying Monsanto and claim they they've planted Monsanto. 4) Find one instance of their plants growing on that farmer's land. (Ignore that seeds travel by air/animals and spread... like seeds have done for millions of years!) 5) Tie up the farmer in court until they either agree to buy Monsanto or they go bankrupt. 6) Repeat 2a - 5.
To expand on Group #1 a bit, we press it into a pill because this lets us extract the medicinal agent and give it at a constant dose. Suppose we found an herb tomorrow that cured cancer. Chewing this herb seemed to make tumors go into remission in many cases. Alternative medicine folks would be happy with that and would sell the herb.
Scientists go further, though. They'd study the herb, figure out just how it is curing the cancer. They would isolate the compound within the herb that does the curing and would figure out how much of a dose was needed. There would be tests to make sure that the cure didn't come with some horrible downside. ("We've cured your cancer but now you are poisoned and have only a week to live.") They'd figure out what the side effects would be. Finally, they'd make a pill with the exact dosage. Chewing the hypothetical herb might cure your cancer or give you too high or too low of a dosage. Taking the pill would give you the exact dosage every time. Finally, since the scientists would know how the herb's chemical worked, they could look for/create similar chemicals with fewer side effects or that better targeted some kinds of cancer.
Hunger is virtually unheard of (if anything, we have more food than is good for us).
I'd disagree with hunger being virtually unheard of, but the reason I'd disagree with it supports your overall argument. There are people who go hungry (both in third world countries and in first world countries like the United States). In almost all cases, though, the problem is not "we don't have enough food to send them", but "there is plenty of food but X is preventing them from getting it" where X could be some local warlord, a natural disaster, politicians who think the solution to poverty is just "they should stop being poor", etc. In other words, the problem is mostly a human one, not a food supply one. (Side note: The amount of food waste in the United States is staggering. Food gets tossed out to rot just because it has a blemish on it and too many people want their food to be 100% blemish free.)
Actually, I was going to use Vegans as an example in another comment on this story but switched it out. I know a vegan online who was attacked by some other vegans for not being "vegan-enough." Apparently, they considered their form of Veganism to be superior to what this woman blogged about following and they took issue with the woman "claiming" to be Vegan when she wasn't following their "rules to be Vegan." It actually got quite nasty.
That being said, you're right. There are just some people who feel that they *need* to be superior to other people, that their choices in life, beliefs, etc are "obviously" superior than that other person's life choices, beliefs, etc., and that they must express this situation as loudly and rudely as possible. These kind of people are found in all religions (and lack-of-religions, aka Atheism). It's not an intrinsically religious thing, but (again, like you said) some religions encourage this behavior as a means of converting nonbelievers.
(Side note: My religion - Judaism - actually discourages evangelical behavior. If you tried to convert to Judaism, you'd be turned away three times and even if you came back, the conversion process would be hard. This isn't because we don't want people converting, but because Judaism recognizes that changing religions is a major affair and wants to ensure that people who are converting are serious about it. No "well, I'll be a Jew today and a Buddist tomorrow and maybe follow Islam on Thursday." This isn't to say that there aren't jerks in Judaism - I've met plenty of those guys - just that they don't tend to be the "we're going to convert you" types.)
Trust me, I want those religious folks to stop too. Whenever religious folks try to get laws passed enforcing their religious beliefs, they invariably are NOT my religious beliefs. (I'm Jewish and they tend to be fundamentalist Christian.) Not that it would be ok if it was my religion being forced on others, but I can't see legislators forcing bacon companies to go out of business because they aren't kosher the way some religious groups, for example, keep wine stores from operating on Sunday because "it's the Sabbath." Why should a government rule be based on "this religion says so"?
Yup. I can't stand those stamp collectors either. If you like collecting stamps, more power to you. If collecting coins, seashells, or interesting rocks is your thing, go for it. If you don't collect anything at all and don't see the point in collecting objects, then by all means don't collect anything. But don't try to denigrate someone for collecting the wrong item/collecting anything/collecting nothing and definitely don't try to force everyone to collect your item of choice or force people to collect nothing at all.
The one by us is so big that they have an upstairs (clothing, electronics, toys, etc) and a downstairs (food, pharmacy, groceries, etc). They have an escalator you can take or an elevator to move between floors. We were walking into the elevator when an elderly couple came in. They mentioned something about celebrating an upcoming holiday (Christmas I think) when my oldest son said "We don't celebrate that. We're Jewish." At this point, the couple went into a shpiel about how you can still be Jewish and accept Jesus etc etc etc. I said thanks but no thanks, we're happy with our own religion, but they wouldn't let up. Never has a one floor elevator ride taken so long.
I think the key is when you have multiple independent sources double-checking the filtering. In the case of the Catholic Church of old, they were the ones holding all the keys to the filter. You couldn't double-check their filter and proclaim them wrong. Well, you could try, but it wouldn't end well for you.
Nowadays, someone can submit an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal declaring X. That's filtered information. However, other scientists will test X and will either declare that it holds up or will debunk it. They can double-check the filtered information without fear of reprisal.
As someone who is somewhat religious, I completely agree with your feelings about religion being tossed into politics, the legal system, day to day life, etc. In my case, I'm Jewish and the "let's toss religion into this" arguments usually come from fundamentalist Christians. Those folks tend to be perplexed about why I won't just "save my soul by accepting Jesus Christ." They say they want to put "Judeo-Christian" values here or there, but I'm not fooled. The "Judeo" part is only there until they get enough progress to force the Christian part on everyone.
I have no problem discussing religion with people, but I always make sure to note that my beliefs are my own. For everyone else, I take a "so long as your actions don't impact me, I'm fine with it" view. You want to believe in Jesus Christ? Go right ahead. You want to practice Islam? Be my guest. You want to say there's no God? No problem. You want to tell me that I can't practice my personal religious beliefs fit because you've declared that The Wrong Way? Sorry, but now we have a problem. (And the same would be true if they declared that someone else couldn't practice their views or declare their lack-of-religious-views. I take that "first they came for" poem very much to heart.)
The Internet is probably just an acceleration of something that has been happening for the past few centuries. Not so long ago, you lived in a small village all your life. Travelling to the next village over was a long and dangerous affair. Travelling to the closest city was almost unthinkable. Travelling to another country was a one-way trip to only be done as a last resort (i.e. your country was kicking you out). The only people who you ever interacted with were the people in your village and they likely all shared the same beliefs.
As transportation improved, people could travel quicker. Whereas you might get 20 - 30 miles a day by travelling on horseback (perhaps less if you were carrying anything), the railroads or boats could go much faster. Nowadays, cars can cover "one horse travel day" in under an hour. Planes can go even faster than that. As the speed and safety of travel improved, more people were able to interact with more people who lived further from them. Things that would have been unthinkable in the past - visiting a country hundreds of miles away for a week for fun - were now possible. This meant more interaction with even more people.
Then television allowed people to "virtually" expand their travel horizons. You could see how people in Japan lived by watching a show about Japan on the TV instead of actually travelling there. The Internet expands it even more because now you can both look up information AND talk to someone from that location. It essentially turns the entire world into a village.
So, yes, the Internet might be responsible for a few long-held beliefs disappearing. However, it's not unique to the Internet. The Internet is just the latest in a long line of advances which have been chipping away at these over the past century or two.
That's interesting. Judaism actually has a "Satan" but he has a much more minor role than in Christianity. In Judaism, he's "the accuser." Think of him as the prosecuting attorney in your post-life trial with God as the judge. (Yes, Satan is a lawyer. Is anyone surprised?) Satan tries to convince God that you were a horrible, terrible, no-good person - no matter how good of a person you were. Your goal in life is essentially to give Satan as little to work with as possible.
There's an interesting interpretation that I heard about the story of Adam and Eve. Right after they ate the apple, realized they were naked, and hid, God come walking up (well, as much as God can) and asks them "Where are you?" Of course, God knows where they are, so why does he ask this? The point of his question wasn't for information about their physical location, but as a prompting for them to apologize for breaking the command. Had they simply admitted their wrong, they might have been forgiven. Instead, Adam claims that Eve tricked him into eating the fruit. (Even going so far as to blame God for giving him that woman - always the wrong move to blame the person in the position to punish you!) Eve, meanwhile, blames the snake for tempting her.
Of course, the way I see it, this story is to be taken as a moral lesson, not a literal telling of actual history. The lesson here is to always admit to the things you do wrong, pledge to improve, and then actually work hard at improving. Don't just pass the buck and try to blame other people so that they can take the fall for you.
No more so than the religious nut jobs. How many times have you browsed to a site thinking it to be a legitimate news site or scientific article only to find that it was a well disguised religious message.
Much fewer than the times I've browsed to a site I thought was a legitimate site and it wound up being a porn site. (It's the reason I shy away from typing in URLs and often just Google the URL. One mistype and you're looking at something nasty instead of something informative.... unless you need information on nastiness then type away.)
I did have someone try to convert me and my family in a Walmart elevator once, though. As if I'm going to change my entire religious belief system in a Walmart elevator! ("And thus didth he say: Thou shalt roll back thine prices. And, lo, He looked upon the savings and declared them good.")
Well, there's not collecting stamps, and then there's looking for any stamp collector you can find and telling them how stupid they are for collecting little pieces of glue-backed paper and how they are wasting their lives by trying to find more of those pieces of paper.
The former merely follows a personal preference over not collecting stamps. The latter intentionally tries to enforce their view of the hobby of stamp collecting on everyone they meet. (Ironically, winding up being just as annoying as the stamp collectors who insist on showing every person they meet their entire stamp collection and pestering them to start a stamp collection of their own because it's such a fun hobby they don't see why everyone wouldn't want to participate.)
I doubt that. Even in zealot communities, there's always someone who is more observant claiming that you aren't observant enough if you don't do X. To give a non-religious example, some people in the open source community look down upon having open source tools available for Windows. They see people who use those as "not being open source enough." Yes, someone who is running FireFox on Windows might not be using as many open source programs as someone using FireFox on Linux, but for some people Windows is what they are used to and will stick with. In this case, it's better that they use *some* open source tools than no open source tools. For other people, using open source Windows programs might eventually make them question why they can't use Linux instead of Windows. For these people, it's a pathway that they are travelling down.
I'm convinced that if the religious right got their way and everyone in America was forced to practice religion as deemed appropriate by the religious right, they (the religious right) would just splinter into the "right", "very right", and "holy cow right." Then there would be a battle over which "religious right" controlled America. Let the "holy cow right" control America and they, in turn, would splinter. In short, there will always be some zealot who is proclaiming that you aren't good enough because you aren't enough like they are. Take religion out of the picture and something else would be chosen as the reason Group A declares that they are better than Group B.
God was made of anti-matter, but then he came to Earth, tried to smite some dinosaurs, and wound up causing a matter-antimatter explosion that wiped out all of them! Fortunately for man, he left all of his teachings in a very special book. Unfortunately for man, that book is also made of anti-matter so the first person who tries to read it will be annihilated.
(I might be on to something here. Excuse me, I'm off to found the Church of the Anti-Matter God.)
Even with that, the nearest star is around 6,400 times as far from us as Pluto is. If you could shrink the travel time down to 2 months to go to Pluto, you'd still be talking hundreds of years to get to the nearest star.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." == Seems appropriate here.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the "only marry one person" command came after Jacob married his two wives and slept with their servants. Loophole!
Of course, some Orthodox Jewish folks I know claim that Abraham kept Kosher even before the laws of keeping Kosher were given because he was just that holy. By that logic, wouldn't Jacob know the "rules of marriage" before they were given?
This exactly. I've been playing a lot of smartphone apps recently. I have no trouble paying something for a game. If they want to release a "lite" version with limited levels, I'm fine with that. It lets you get a feel for the game play and see if you want to spend the cash for the full version. I don't even have a problem with additional level packs costing more money. What I have a problem with are games where you either 1) Need to buy items with the "premium currency" (only obtainable by paying cash) to advance in the game or 2) Need to pay to keep an "energy meter" up. In the latter case, if you limit how much I play your game, you are just making it more likely that I'll play another game, not pay you money.
As an example of a game-gone-wrong, I'd submit Where's My Water. The first game was pretty good. There was a lite version, a paid version, and additional level packs you could buy. Then Where's My Water 2 came out. At first, they had an energy meter, but they got rid of that when people complained. My big issue? Keys. You can only obtain keys by 1) buying them or 2) bugging people on social media. If you don't do that, you can't proceed along the map. If you buy the keys, you will just get stuck at the next gate that requires more keys. So you aren't even buying "the full version", you are buying "the next level or two." The end result? I don't even have that app on my phone anymore.
I don't begrudge game developers from making money, but it's a fine line between encouraging payments and annoying people too much.
Jacob even married two sisters. In his defense, he was "tricked" into marrying the older sister when he wanted to marry the younger one, but then they got into a competition over who would give Jacob more kids and had Jacob sleep with their handmaidens so he could impregnate them and their kids would count towards the appropriate sisters' totals.
If someone did that today, they'd be tried for bigamy ASAP and "I was tricked into the first marriage" or "We just wanted more kids" wouldn't be any defense at all. You need to be very careful when chastising any historical figure (be they from religious texts or from history) based on modern day social rules/laws.
My son has autism and we never gave him any homeopathic treatments..... Wait a second, don't homeopathic treatments get more potent the less of them that there is? So taking none would have an infinite effect! That must be it. Quick, everyone! Take some homeopathic treatments before we overdose on homeopathic treatments.
If they are selling something as a remedy to an ailment, they MUST get FDA approval. They can't simply say "well we don't have the budget so we won't do that."
Airborne got in trouble for that. They sold their product as a cure for the common cold, but didn't have FDA approval. They are still selling it, but they need to be careful to not state that it cures or treats anything. They now claim it is a "nutritional supplement."
Of course not. The only power source capable of generating 1.21 jigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning!
Perhaps people oppose Monsanto because of this tactic:
1) Claim a patent on seeds Monsanto makes.
2) Get some farmers to buy the seeds.
2 a) Lock the farmers in by stipulating that they can't take any seeds the plant produces and plant them again next year... like people have done for thousands of years!
3) Find a nearby farmer who isn't buying Monsanto and claim they they've planted Monsanto.
4) Find one instance of their plants growing on that farmer's land. (Ignore that seeds travel by air/animals and spread... like seeds have done for millions of years!)
5) Tie up the farmer in court until they either agree to buy Monsanto or they go bankrupt.
6) Repeat 2a - 5.
To expand on Group #1 a bit, we press it into a pill because this lets us extract the medicinal agent and give it at a constant dose. Suppose we found an herb tomorrow that cured cancer. Chewing this herb seemed to make tumors go into remission in many cases. Alternative medicine folks would be happy with that and would sell the herb.
Scientists go further, though. They'd study the herb, figure out just how it is curing the cancer. They would isolate the compound within the herb that does the curing and would figure out how much of a dose was needed. There would be tests to make sure that the cure didn't come with some horrible downside. ("We've cured your cancer but now you are poisoned and have only a week to live.") They'd figure out what the side effects would be. Finally, they'd make a pill with the exact dosage. Chewing the hypothetical herb might cure your cancer or give you too high or too low of a dosage. Taking the pill would give you the exact dosage every time. Finally, since the scientists would know how the herb's chemical worked, they could look for/create similar chemicals with fewer side effects or that better targeted some kinds of cancer.
I'd disagree with hunger being virtually unheard of, but the reason I'd disagree with it supports your overall argument. There are people who go hungry (both in third world countries and in first world countries like the United States). In almost all cases, though, the problem is not "we don't have enough food to send them", but "there is plenty of food but X is preventing them from getting it" where X could be some local warlord, a natural disaster, politicians who think the solution to poverty is just "they should stop being poor", etc. In other words, the problem is mostly a human one, not a food supply one. (Side note: The amount of food waste in the United States is staggering. Food gets tossed out to rot just because it has a blemish on it and too many people want their food to be 100% blemish free.)
Actually, I was going to use Vegans as an example in another comment on this story but switched it out. I know a vegan online who was attacked by some other vegans for not being "vegan-enough." Apparently, they considered their form of Veganism to be superior to what this woman blogged about following and they took issue with the woman "claiming" to be Vegan when she wasn't following their "rules to be Vegan." It actually got quite nasty.
That being said, you're right. There are just some people who feel that they *need* to be superior to other people, that their choices in life, beliefs, etc are "obviously" superior than that other person's life choices, beliefs, etc., and that they must express this situation as loudly and rudely as possible. These kind of people are found in all religions (and lack-of-religions, aka Atheism). It's not an intrinsically religious thing, but (again, like you said) some religions encourage this behavior as a means of converting nonbelievers.
(Side note: My religion - Judaism - actually discourages evangelical behavior. If you tried to convert to Judaism, you'd be turned away three times and even if you came back, the conversion process would be hard. This isn't because we don't want people converting, but because Judaism recognizes that changing religions is a major affair and wants to ensure that people who are converting are serious about it. No "well, I'll be a Jew today and a Buddist tomorrow and maybe follow Islam on Thursday." This isn't to say that there aren't jerks in Judaism - I've met plenty of those guys - just that they don't tend to be the "we're going to convert you" types.)
As I read that quickly, I got excited and then realized I was reading it wrong and you did not state that you'd need to deliver 1.21 gigawatts.
Trust me, I want those religious folks to stop too. Whenever religious folks try to get laws passed enforcing their religious beliefs, they invariably are NOT my religious beliefs. (I'm Jewish and they tend to be fundamentalist Christian.) Not that it would be ok if it was my religion being forced on others, but I can't see legislators forcing bacon companies to go out of business because they aren't kosher the way some religious groups, for example, keep wine stores from operating on Sunday because "it's the Sabbath." Why should a government rule be based on "this religion says so"?
Yup. I can't stand those stamp collectors either. If you like collecting stamps, more power to you. If collecting coins, seashells, or interesting rocks is your thing, go for it. If you don't collect anything at all and don't see the point in collecting objects, then by all means don't collect anything. But don't try to denigrate someone for collecting the wrong item/collecting anything/collecting nothing and definitely don't try to force everyone to collect your item of choice or force people to collect nothing at all.
The one by us is so big that they have an upstairs (clothing, electronics, toys, etc) and a downstairs (food, pharmacy, groceries, etc). They have an escalator you can take or an elevator to move between floors. We were walking into the elevator when an elderly couple came in. They mentioned something about celebrating an upcoming holiday (Christmas I think) when my oldest son said "We don't celebrate that. We're Jewish." At this point, the couple went into a shpiel about how you can still be Jewish and accept Jesus etc etc etc. I said thanks but no thanks, we're happy with our own religion, but they wouldn't let up. Never has a one floor elevator ride taken so long.
I think the key is when you have multiple independent sources double-checking the filtering. In the case of the Catholic Church of old, they were the ones holding all the keys to the filter. You couldn't double-check their filter and proclaim them wrong. Well, you could try, but it wouldn't end well for you.
Nowadays, someone can submit an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal declaring X. That's filtered information. However, other scientists will test X and will either declare that it holds up or will debunk it. They can double-check the filtered information without fear of reprisal.
As someone who is somewhat religious, I completely agree with your feelings about religion being tossed into politics, the legal system, day to day life, etc. In my case, I'm Jewish and the "let's toss religion into this" arguments usually come from fundamentalist Christians. Those folks tend to be perplexed about why I won't just "save my soul by accepting Jesus Christ." They say they want to put "Judeo-Christian" values here or there, but I'm not fooled. The "Judeo" part is only there until they get enough progress to force the Christian part on everyone.
I have no problem discussing religion with people, but I always make sure to note that my beliefs are my own. For everyone else, I take a "so long as your actions don't impact me, I'm fine with it" view. You want to believe in Jesus Christ? Go right ahead. You want to practice Islam? Be my guest. You want to say there's no God? No problem. You want to tell me that I can't practice my personal religious beliefs fit because you've declared that The Wrong Way? Sorry, but now we have a problem. (And the same would be true if they declared that someone else couldn't practice their views or declare their lack-of-religious-views. I take that "first they came for" poem very much to heart.)
The Internet is probably just an acceleration of something that has been happening for the past few centuries. Not so long ago, you lived in a small village all your life. Travelling to the next village over was a long and dangerous affair. Travelling to the closest city was almost unthinkable. Travelling to another country was a one-way trip to only be done as a last resort (i.e. your country was kicking you out). The only people who you ever interacted with were the people in your village and they likely all shared the same beliefs.
As transportation improved, people could travel quicker. Whereas you might get 20 - 30 miles a day by travelling on horseback (perhaps less if you were carrying anything), the railroads or boats could go much faster. Nowadays, cars can cover "one horse travel day" in under an hour. Planes can go even faster than that. As the speed and safety of travel improved, more people were able to interact with more people who lived further from them. Things that would have been unthinkable in the past - visiting a country hundreds of miles away for a week for fun - were now possible. This meant more interaction with even more people.
Then television allowed people to "virtually" expand their travel horizons. You could see how people in Japan lived by watching a show about Japan on the TV instead of actually travelling there. The Internet expands it even more because now you can both look up information AND talk to someone from that location. It essentially turns the entire world into a village.
So, yes, the Internet might be responsible for a few long-held beliefs disappearing. However, it's not unique to the Internet. The Internet is just the latest in a long line of advances which have been chipping away at these over the past century or two.
That's interesting. Judaism actually has a "Satan" but he has a much more minor role than in Christianity. In Judaism, he's "the accuser." Think of him as the prosecuting attorney in your post-life trial with God as the judge. (Yes, Satan is a lawyer. Is anyone surprised?) Satan tries to convince God that you were a horrible, terrible, no-good person - no matter how good of a person you were. Your goal in life is essentially to give Satan as little to work with as possible.
There's an interesting interpretation that I heard about the story of Adam and Eve. Right after they ate the apple, realized they were naked, and hid, God come walking up (well, as much as God can) and asks them "Where are you?" Of course, God knows where they are, so why does he ask this? The point of his question wasn't for information about their physical location, but as a prompting for them to apologize for breaking the command. Had they simply admitted their wrong, they might have been forgiven. Instead, Adam claims that Eve tricked him into eating the fruit. (Even going so far as to blame God for giving him that woman - always the wrong move to blame the person in the position to punish you!) Eve, meanwhile, blames the snake for tempting her.
Of course, the way I see it, this story is to be taken as a moral lesson, not a literal telling of actual history. The lesson here is to always admit to the things you do wrong, pledge to improve, and then actually work hard at improving. Don't just pass the buck and try to blame other people so that they can take the fall for you.
Much fewer than the times I've browsed to a site I thought was a legitimate site and it wound up being a porn site. (It's the reason I shy away from typing in URLs and often just Google the URL. One mistype and you're looking at something nasty instead of something informative.... unless you need information on nastiness then type away.)
I did have someone try to convert me and my family in a Walmart elevator once, though. As if I'm going to change my entire religious belief system in a Walmart elevator! ("And thus didth he say: Thou shalt roll back thine prices. And, lo, He looked upon the savings and declared them good.")
Well, there's not collecting stamps, and then there's looking for any stamp collector you can find and telling them how stupid they are for collecting little pieces of glue-backed paper and how they are wasting their lives by trying to find more of those pieces of paper.
The former merely follows a personal preference over not collecting stamps. The latter intentionally tries to enforce their view of the hobby of stamp collecting on everyone they meet. (Ironically, winding up being just as annoying as the stamp collectors who insist on showing every person they meet their entire stamp collection and pestering them to start a stamp collection of their own because it's such a fun hobby they don't see why everyone wouldn't want to participate.)
I doubt that. Even in zealot communities, there's always someone who is more observant claiming that you aren't observant enough if you don't do X. To give a non-religious example, some people in the open source community look down upon having open source tools available for Windows. They see people who use those as "not being open source enough." Yes, someone who is running FireFox on Windows might not be using as many open source programs as someone using FireFox on Linux, but for some people Windows is what they are used to and will stick with. In this case, it's better that they use *some* open source tools than no open source tools. For other people, using open source Windows programs might eventually make them question why they can't use Linux instead of Windows. For these people, it's a pathway that they are travelling down.
I'm convinced that if the religious right got their way and everyone in America was forced to practice religion as deemed appropriate by the religious right, they (the religious right) would just splinter into the "right", "very right", and "holy cow right." Then there would be a battle over which "religious right" controlled America. Let the "holy cow right" control America and they, in turn, would splinter. In short, there will always be some zealot who is proclaiming that you aren't good enough because you aren't enough like they are. Take religion out of the picture and something else would be chosen as the reason Group A declares that they are better than Group B.
God was made of anti-matter, but then he came to Earth, tried to smite some dinosaurs, and wound up causing a matter-antimatter explosion that wiped out all of them! Fortunately for man, he left all of his teachings in a very special book. Unfortunately for man, that book is also made of anti-matter so the first person who tries to read it will be annihilated.
(I might be on to something here. Excuse me, I'm off to found the Church of the Anti-Matter God.)
Given that the kid is 5 and likely in Kindergarten, he could say "I've been finding bugs in software almost since before *I* was in school!"
Even with that, the nearest star is around 6,400 times as far from us as Pluto is. If you could shrink the travel time down to 2 months to go to Pluto, you'd still be talking hundreds of years to get to the nearest star.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." == Seems appropriate here.