Date: 2012-05-26 11:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randomchris.livejournal.com
If "playing strategy games on a computer" counts for "planning an invasion", then 15/21 with #1 to follow in a few months. Although why is "build a wall" a separate accomplishment from "design a building"?

And I note that 21/21 is not possible if you want to actually get recognised for your achievement...

Date: 2012-05-26 12:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] philmophlegm.livejournal.com
I answered yes to that one on the basis of several Total War games...

Date: 2012-05-26 07:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
both load-wise, and function-wise, walls are kinda different than buildings.

Date: 2012-05-26 12:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] artkouros.livejournal.com
I found the abortion story when I was deconstructing Numbers. It's just one of the many reasons that traditional marriage is such a fine institution.

Date: 2012-05-26 12:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brixtonbrood.livejournal.com
For obvious reasons I am deeply sceptical about a lot of Heinlein's views, but he's clawed a bit of respect back from me by including "change a diaper".

I reckon I'd manage about 14, depending on whether you'd count my flaky VBA as "programming a computer".

Date: 2012-05-26 01:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drjon.livejournal.com
I have done, or am confident I can do, 20 of the 21. I have no idea of the last, however.

And specialization may be for insects, but I'm pretty sure Bob would have disapproved of me ;}P>

Date: 2012-05-26 02:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drdoug.livejournal.com
Heinlein is wrong. As often. Specialisation is only for a very small number of insect species. It's necessary for any human society beyond hunter-gathering or subsistence farming. It's not a bad thing to be mutually interdependent with other humans.

Date: 2012-05-26 09:29 pm (UTC)
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)
From: [personal profile] simont
Indeed. Humans don't biologically specialise, but we still have to make a tradeoff between being a jack of many trades and a master of few; the fact that we can defer that tradeoff until run time while those insect species have to make it at compile time doesn't make the tradeoff itself disappear, or change the fact that sometimes jack-of-all-trades is not the universal right answer.

Date: 2012-05-26 06:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
I, unlike you, have a bible within arms reach. So I checked. The woman is supposed to hold grain, and drink water with some floor dirt in it. And if she's been unfaithful, she'll turn into a monster. It doesn't say abortion, it says her abdomen will swell and her thighs (and presumably her ass) will waste away, and she'll be a curse to her people.

This is an agreement the woman agrees to, presumably for a superstitious people. The priest says "Ok, this guy says you were unfaithful. So we'll do this test, and if you were cheating, God will turn you into a big fat troll with no ass. And if you weren't cheating, you'll be fine." A guilty-conscience woman would have trouble agreeing to this ceremony.

The passage also makes no mention of pregnancy.

Date: 2012-05-26 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
huh. Mine does not say miscarry.

Date: 2012-05-26 07:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
the literal translation is "make your thigh fall" whatever the hell that means

Date: 2012-05-26 08:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladysisyphus.livejournal.com
*cracks knuckles*

Okay, if you want the generally accepted scholarly translation, here's the text of Numbers 5 from the NRSV, which is one of the only two versions I let students use in class (the other is the JPS). However, to rise above the version wars, let me give you the super-rad translation of Everett Fox's:

21 the priest is to have the woman swear the oath curse,
and the priest is to say to the woman:
may YHWH mke you a curse and a cause-for-oath in the midst of your kinspeople,
when YHWH makes your thigh fall and your belly flood;
22 may this Water of Bitterness enter your innards,
to cause the belly to flood and the thigh to fall!
And the woman is to say: Amen! Amen!


And Fox's note on the verse is this:
oath curse: or 'threat', the part of hte oath threatening punishment. thigh fall . . . belly flood: While the precise biological process is not clear (the suggestions vary from miscarriage to a prolapsed uterus), sterility is one possible meaning. 'Thigh' in the Bible is often a euphemism for genitals (e.g., Gen. 24:2). It is also possible that the woman is pregnant and that the intention is to abort the fetus, since if the husband's suspicions of adultery are founded, the child will be illegitimate and hence a threat to the purity of Israel (Levine).


I'm not going to play the game of WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY SAY, because ... well, that's for people who've done a whole lot more research than I have. What I'd rather do is point out that for the thousands of years of Jewish tradition the text has existed, it hasn't been read as being about abortion -- largely because it's a) 100% not the woman's elective procedure being described there, and b) only incidentally about what might be inside that uterus. Instead, this text describes the ritual of Sotah, which merits its own sub-section of the Talmud.

I'll tell you right now, though, that if you tried to use this argument to convince Bible-believing abortion opponents that they should support abortion because God does, and this was your sole argument, you'd get laughed off the stage. Both sides would tell you that the Law demands lots of things that people don't do anymore: Jews because there's no Temple or Temple priesthood any longer, and Christians because Christians, through Jesus, have a different relationship to the Law. I mean, there are many, many more scriptures that talk about stoning people to death, but you don't see people making blog posts claiming that you can believe in the Bible or you can be anti-stoning, but you can't do both.

Date: 2012-05-26 07:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
but my point still holds, the purpose is not abortion, the purpose is to give the woman some sort of feat or test to undergo, to prove that she has no guilty conscience. Something which is not normally harmful (in the desert, everybody drank a little floor dust in their water) but would curse them.

Date: 2012-05-27 02:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
I really don't like using this passage either about abortion or about forcing the woman. I really think it's neither. I see it more as "what to do if the man becomes insanely jealous".

Now if you wanted to talk about abortion, you could point to the old testament God as having no problem killing women and children who were inconvenient.

Date: 2012-05-26 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] iainjcoleman.livejournal.com
I think you could do with a more up-to-date bible translation. Older translations, including the KJV, say the woman's thigh will waste away / fall off. More modern translations say her womb will miscarry.

Date: 2012-05-26 07:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com
mine is a more literal translation, or so I've heard, the NASB.

Date: 2012-05-26 07:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] iainjcoleman.livejournal.com
I would endorse the comments in the linked post about the inadequacy of so-called literal translations.

March 2026

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 15th, 2026 06:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios