The theological answer is that God doesn't really have a step by step plan for the life of each person. Sure, there are ways he wants to bless you, and things he wants you to do that he's put you in a position to do, but not a step by step plan. Example: Esther was in a position to have the king's ear when he planned to kill all the Jews. Esther 4 says that the Jews will be saved with or without Esther helping, but God had chosen her and given her what she needed to save the Jews.
Also, on free will, the most important part of free will is the ability to choose to leave God. That's what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is about. It's not knowledge in our modern sense, a better description would be "the right to define good and evil". So when Adam and Eve ate that fruit, they were basically saying "I don't want God's idea of what good and evil is, I want to do it myself". I know that seems not so bad to our culture, but it's basically saying "I know better than God, who knows everything".
Agreed. You go furniture shopping, you can't really carry a couch back home in the tube. Cars won't be entirely replaced, but they wouldn't be needed in most of their current use cases
Yes, autonomous vehicles will probably be better drivers than the a stage human when the technology is more mature. As far as I know, in an idealized futuristic city any cars would be autonomous. The issue is that they're all cars, and so have some inherent problems with efficiency and safety that can't be fixed by self driving.
The real solution to unsafe roads is trains. Worried about pedestrians? Put the trains underground or up high, where pedestrians aren't. Crashes? You rarely have two trains in the same place at the same time. Drunk/reckless/otherwise stupid drivers? Trains have much more well trained and vetted drivers. And that's not talking about all the efficiency side that trains are really good at.
If Pepycito is right, they might be employed as police officers, but they're not currently working as officers. I'm no expert on US law, so I don't know if that actually counts as impersonation, but knowing the US it proposal doesn't matter since it wouldn't be enforced anyway.
My personal rule is "do I know why that word is a swear word, and is that a dumb reason?"
That means Anglo-Saxon words like fuck or shit are fine. They're swear words because of William the conqueror invading England, and making all the nobility speak Norman. Then all the peasants started to use some French words to sound more posh, so the Anglo-Saxon words became 'less pleasant' than the Norman words, and that meant shit, fuck, and similar words just got kicked out.
On the other hand, there are swear words I won't use. Anything with a terrible historical use, an actually bad definition, or any religious connotation (yes, I'm religious, but I'd still keep this if I wasn't). Example, I won't use the word damn as a swear word, since I would never wasn't someone to be sent to hell. No, I don't believe that saying "damn you" will actually damn someone, but I just think it's a swear word for a good reason.
Well then it'll take divine intervention to kill me