102 karma · joined February 19, 2016
Spiritually, they died that very day and were dead in sin unless God helped them.
And back to physically, just imagining the sight of the tree of life and the experience of getting banished - that's going to feel like a death.
The fact that our large complex brains make childbirth painful has a kind of irony: the original mistake in the garden was that they supposed they knew better than God, and so they ate of that one forbidden tree.
They had big heads, so to speak.
I mentioned this to a buddy and he wondered if there are any other animals with big heads who also, with __complete knowledge__, do things to their own harm like smoke cigarettes, etc. No animal knows more and is yet more prone.
Apparently one can be a corpse and still sense this, for we are not merely flesh and there is no point to such worm or fire if they cannot be sensed.
But they are consequences, not punishment. For punishment, see a sibling comment elsewhere on this page that has a massive quote.
But it makes sense if one does two things:
1. hold all the rest of existence to be as the light dust of the balance in worth compared to God
2. see what other parts of the Bible say about the troublesome passage in question.
> ... people thousands of generations removed who have no responsibility ...
If you grew up with this stuff, then you already know:
- even without Adam's representation, each of us has already committed the same error of thinking we know better than God, or holding something else as worth more to us than God
- rejecting the idea that someone could represent you before God would include rejecting the offer that Jesus could represent you and take your sentence and allow God to see you with Jesus' record.
Edit: the supposition in Genesis is if they hadn't ever eaten, they'd be alive today.
But I used the word Consequence.
As for Punishment, I found this quote to be helpful in understanding:
"It is just with God eternally to cast off and destroy sinners."- For this is the punishment which the law condemns to- The truth of this doctrine may appear by the joint consideration of two things, viz. Man's sinfulness, and God's sovereignty.
I. It appears from the consideration of man's sinfulness. And that whether we consider the infinitely evil nature of all sin, or how much sin men are guilty of.
1. If we consider the infinite evil and heinousness of sin in general, it is not unjust in God to inflict what punishment is deserved; because the very notion of deserving any punishment is, that it may be justly inflicted. A deserved punishment and a just punishment are the same thing. To say that one deserves such a punishment, and yet to say that he does not justly deserve it, is a contradiction; and if he justly deserves it, then it may be justly inflicted.
Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never be so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful.
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.
Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.
But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.
So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.- Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, I Samuel 2:25. "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him;" (i.e. shall judge him, and inflict a finite punishment, such as finite judges can inflict;) "but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?" This was the aggravation of sin that made Joseph afraid of it. Genesis 39:9. "How shall I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God?" This was the aggravation of David's sin, in comparison of which he esteemed all others as nothing, because they were infinitely exceeded by it. Psalm 51:4. "Against thee, thee only have I sinned."-The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.
If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.
So that the objections made against the infinite punishment of sin, from the necessity, or rather previous certainty, of the futurition of sin, arising from the unavoidable original corruption of nature, if they argue any thing, argue against any faultiness at all: for if this necessity or certainty leaves any evil at all in sin, that fault must be infinite by reason of the infinite object.
But every such objector as would argue from hence, that there is no fault at all in sin, confutes himself, and shows his own insincerity in his objection. For at the same time that he objects, that men's acts are necessary, and that this kind of necessity is inconsistent with faultiness in the act, his own practice shows that he does not believe what he objects to be true: otherwise why does he at all blame men? Or why are such persons at all displeased with men, for abusive, injurious, and ungrateful acts towards them? Whatever they pretend, by this they show that indeed they do believe that there is no necessity in men's acts that is inconsistent with blame. And if their objection be this, that this previous certainty is by God's own ordering, and that where God orders an antecedent certainty of acts, he transfers all the fault from the actor on himself; their practice shows, that at the same time they do not believe this, but fully believe the contrary: for when they are abused by men, they are displeased with men, and not with God only.
The light of nature teaches all mankind, that when an injury is voluntary, it is faulty, without any consideration of what there might be previously to determine the futurition of that evil act of the will. And it really teaches this as much to those that object and cavil most as to others; as their universal practice shows. By which it appears, that such objections are insincere and perverse. Men will mention others' corrupt nature when they are injured, as a thing that aggravates their crime, and that wherein their faultiness partly consists. How common is it for persons, when they look on themselves greatly injured by another, to inveigh against him, and aggravate his baseness, by saying, "He is a man of a most perverse spirit: he is naturally of a selfish, niggardly, or proud and haughty temper: he is one of a base and vile disposition." And yet men's natural and corrupt dispositions are mentioned as an excuse for them, with respect to their sins against God, as if they rendered them blameless.
2. That it is just with God eternally to cast off wicked men, may more abundantly appear, if we consider how much sin they are guilty of...
Parents allow or impose consequences to signal to children when their choices could be wiser.
One way to believe in intelligent design despite how awful human childbirth is compared to those for other animals -- is found in Genesis:
Humans decided they knew better than God about what is best for themselves so they didn't listen to His one and only (at the time) command. So He imposed some consequences, including "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children." Genesis 3:16.
Sorry. I almost resisted naming the language. But what got to me was my co-worker's complaint was about the very tech that made it possible to launch + save $x mil + save some nights and weekends and holidays for a handful of other devs.
And that the complaint was: the language choice makes it less maintainable (hiring pool is smaller) -- but the two factors I mentioned above actually contribute greatly to maintainability.
My original comment could have just been: "a production support tool can be a place to prototype new features."
And _other_ teams could have used other tech to solve the problem. But for the team that had the context and the responsibility, this was the highest probability shot. After hitting the target, a complaint was not the expectation.
Down votes are interesting when applied to a comment that's an answer to a direct question. (this isn't directed at sd9)
But here are two factors that make me faster in the uncommon language.
You know the usual debugger experience where if you keep stepping or you set a breakpoint and then later realize the interesting part is actually behind you? Which means you have to start your scenario again?
Well, the uncommon language has a recording debugger so you can visit any points in front of or behind you, and see what any variable or return value was. You're not limited by the current stack because the recorder captured every package you told it to from the beginning
Even a third party package...
This means I only have to debug once to find the bug, not n times.
And the language is expressive and pliable enough that this debugger was implemented in the language itself...
And mostly by one guy -- not me of course -- it didn't take a whole company to implement it.
And you know how in some languages like Java if your car (program) starts acting up in LA, you have to update the blueprint, send it to the car factory, build the new car, drive it back to LA, and try the same left turn to see it it still ferks?
With the uncommon language, I can stay in LA and change the car while the engine is still running, n times before the 2nd Java car arrives. The language is Clojure.
So I got approval to hack out a temporary impartial suboptimal version and we were able to take off in time.
This has allowed us to fly for a bit while others finish building out the permanent proper version of that part of the wing.
In fact, during our flight we discovered missed requirements in the original design. This has delayed that proper version's release to prod. But I've been able to add that quickly to my hack and keep us flying.
My hack doubles as a production support tool. And as an alternate route if the permanent version needs to be paused because of a bug. Yes it's a partial imperfect hack but it has benefits.
Someone has complained about the language I used since it is less common. But remember, we weren't going to be able to take flight with the existing resources and approach.
We would have needed more and/or faster developers in the favored language to meet the deadline.
If any present employee (including me) had bandwidth and was able to be as productive in the favored language as I was building my hack in the uncommon language, that employee would have been tasked to build the permanent solution on time. That option was not available.
Anyways, if you have an existing production support tool, it's also a place where prototype features can live for a while.
In between the two prints he let me mark the page however I wanted so I could be sure it was the same physical page coming back out.
He admitted there was no market for such a thing but it was cool to see anyways. This was in the mid 1990s
There is a smaller system that can consume diesel slowly and keep your fuel from freezing -- one doesn't have to run the entire engine!
There was a time recently when only 3 out of the 300+ air traffic control centers in the U.S. were fully staffed. All the rest were short-handed. Not sure how it stands today
ARES Nevada is developing a 50MW GravityLine merchant energy storage facility on approximately 20 acres at Gamebird Pit, a working gravel mine in Pahrump, Nevada. This project will employ a fleet of 210 mass cars, weighing a combined 75,000 tons, operating on a closed set of 10 multi-rail tracks.
What is the "best" thing for parents to do?
For "best", I'm interested in two things: making the system less broken, and the kiddos being ok as adults.
Are there laws about sticking something under a door?
There are hockey-puck sized devices you can attach to surfaces, which can turn them into speakers. Perhaps you can make clearer, calmer announcements compared to yelling, especially if the device can take a second to calibrate itself against the material. Once it's attached, your hand is free to do something other than knocking. And the device can play some standard announcement, so your voice is freed up as well to communicate with other officers or whatever.
Yes such a device wouldn't be cheap, but if I were an officer and there's a risk of being misunderstood, I'd be interested.
I figured he'd be interested in suggestions on how to raise the likelihood the occupants would know it's the police and not some gang bangers. Especially since it could save lives on both sides of an incident, including his.
He wasn't personally interested in yet another thing to carry/deploy/remember when he knocks on doors, and said we can't worry about every "edge case". Whatever I said, he tended to push back.
But after I pressed him some more, he said I could email a suggestion to my state's peace officer standards and training "POST" org. (usa)
Wu C, Wang Z, Song X, et al. Joint analysis of three genome-wide association studies of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Chinese populations. Nature Genetics 2014; 46(9):1001-1006.
[1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...