A Tripolation

I'll answer this for you. Because He can and He wanted to.

I'm glad that you're standing up for what you perceive to be a slur, StringJunky, but where exactly did ydoaPs make hurtful remarks about us Christians?

My bad. I thought you were saying that it's wrong of us to celebrate something if we do not know when it happened (and we don't). And thanks. You're the least boring chemist I know.

We can still celebrate the memory of the event that is one of the most precious in all of the Bible to us.

Ah. I see. Thanks to both of you. And thanks for the links DrRocket!

So this isn't a homework question, but I felt like it was the most appropriate forum. My friend asked: "Ok, so the earth is moving around the sun at 30 km per second. At the same time, the sun is moving around the galaxy at 250 km per second. But when the earth is moving around the sun in the same direction that the sun is moving around the galaxy, the earth is actually moving faster than the sun to get around and pass it. So the earth would speed up to 280km per second. The opposite is also true, in which case the earth going behind and around the sun would slow down to 220 km per second. that is a variance of + or - 60 km per second.....so why the hell don't we feel that, or at least see some effect of it in the tides or something?" I know there's an error in how he is thinking. Something to do with frames of reference, maybe? I could be completely wrong. I was just wondering the answer to this question myself. Thanks.

I agree.

Me too. That was pretty great, Michel.

Your computer works. Otherwise you would not be using it. And how does that statement help your original point at all?

Our senses are flawed to an extent. That's why we try to use devices to measure for us. A good example:

Binary logic will not change. Quantum Electrodynamics will make changes with relevance to quantum computing, but that is why I put classical in front of it. Your computer operated on classical mechanics, and always will. Besides, that statement supports your original idea in no way whatsoever.

But you can bet your life on the fact that the classical binary logic that runs them will always stay the same. As will the classical electrodynamics that is used in the electrical components. Yes. You are.

I guess you have faith that your computer will continue abiding by the laws that govern its circuitry? Funny how it doesn't just up and decide to adhere to a new set of laws.

Amending a law [math]\ne[/math] Rebelling against a law.

...all the supernatural things that happen in the Bible, and you have a problem with talking snakes? Really? Jesus did not work on Sundays. He fellowshipped. And taught. and healed. No. It doesn't. No. It really isn't. It's because you're stupid.

Well-said, lemur.

You just wish to rant. You do not want a discussion. It's common knowledge that Satan was the Archangel known as Lucifer. The Book of Job describes God allowing Satan to destroy all that Job has. Satan is confident that Job will curse God if God stops blessing him. How does this have ANYTHING to do with what you're saying? Who are you trying to impress by being so hateful? The only rebellion that matters at all is one against God. Never has He rewarded such a thing. That's a fact you can't deny. Of course he rewarded "rebellions" that He himself advocated.

The one that people had disgraced by turning into a flea market? That church?

I agree. And as is constantly stated in the Bible, the highest, and often-times only, moral authority that exists is God. So any rebellion that is of any consequence would be one against Him. The OP provided no such argument that showed that God rewarded rebellion against him. I was actually applying the term in the only contextual way that made sense. The Bible oft speaks of rebellions against God. They never end with a reward. The "unforgivable sin" is blaspheming God, which is a rebellion against Him. However, God does encourage rebelling against man, and for Christians to hold themselves to a higher standing of morality than the rest of the world. In other words, to rebel against all the sins of the material world. If this is what the OP was talking about, then the only response is, "Yes. And your point is?".

Creation [math]\ne[/math] rebellion. Satan was created previously. He was not created for the express purpose of tempting Adam and Eve. He was an Archangel, and he had free will. He chose to go into Eden to try to get Adam and Eve on his side, as it were. Adam and Eve knew they existed. They knew God had given them free will, otherwise a forbidden fruit would not have much meaning, would it? They already knew they were sovereign over themselves. Satan is not King of this world. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. He was cast from heaven, along with a third of the angels. I REALLY don't see how being shunned from heaven and put into a finite world populated with humans is reward. The temptation of Christ has nothing to do with this. They became like God in that they knew right from wrong. They were able to see the full consequences of their actions, much like a god would. Man has always had dominion over Earth. They did not suddenly gain this when they were cast out of Eden. Moses followed God's orders, and freed His people. That was not a rebellion. Again, Noah followed God's words. God rewarded that. Not rebelling against humans. I will continue to neg-rep you so long as you speak of Christians in this degenerative manner. It's not conducive to a good discussion. Jesus did not rebel. He was God himself, in human form. He was perfect, and rebelled against no one. He simply established a new law. And seeing as how He is God, I find it hard to believe that it's classified as a "rebellion". Yes, you frequently get conclusions you agree with when your entire argument is based on a false premise. Must be nice.

You should write an angsty, existential, sci-fi novel.

imatfaal is correct on all accounts, hal_2011. The English language has many subtleties, more perhaps than any other. Sentences can be taken different ways based on tone, body language, and even the previous sentences. "Don't you want a cup of coffee?" is most assuredly someone surprised that that their conclusion of the person wanting coffee is incorrect. The OP was indeed wanting verification for what he believed to be a correct answer.

This is mostly what I was trying to ask. Why is it that mostly everyone (that I know of, at least) seems to feel this way? Is it that way for everyone? So is that it? Shyness? No other underlying factors? Thanks. Pretty sure they were all drunk though.

Do you think it's a good idea? Does it make you uncomfortable? Do you feel that it's a successful tactic when you have romantic intent? I myself have approached three random girls in the past month, and successfully gotten dates with each (I attribute it to random luck. And dashing good looks). I've also approached random people and made new friends. Is this how most people meet new friends and romantic interests? Until I went to university, I never did such a thing and was never particularly extroversive, so I'd like new viewpoints on the topic.