The solution you propose is wholly inadequate; certain rights are obtained by marriage as far as your relationship with your partner: who can make medical decisions for whom, for one example.
Personally I say that “marriage” needs to be dismissed entirely as a religious term (even if it isn’t innately a religious word, it has always - even when used culturally rather than religiously - referred to the union of a man to a woman, and that is considered religious). Replace it statutorily with “civil union” and do a global search-and-replace to substitute the new term for the old one (it wouldn’t be quite that simple but I think you at least get my meaning).
All the complaints that “civil unions aren’t the same as marriage” would become moot. Of course Christians - or anyone else - would still be able to go to their religious entity of choice and have a ceremony and get a paper that says they are “MARRIED” (as endorsed by that religious entity); the difference would be that the document would then be meaningless in any legal sense. If a church decided to give papers to gays saying that they were “married”, other churches could denounce them as not real marriages and this religious squabble would have no bearing whatsoever on their tax, medical, etc. status because as long as they had the gov’t-issued papers that said “Civil Union” they’d be just the same off legally as any married couple who had the same set of papers.
Plus, you could offer the same Civil Union legal status to relatives living together, giving them significant benefits in terms of inheritance, taxation, medical decisions, and so on which are currently unobtainable to them because a marriage would be incestuous.
And what, in your expert opinion, was the context of the similar commands to offer someone your cloak as well if they demanded your tunic or to carry bags two miles if they demanded you carry them one?
Ok, I’ll just tell you.
A tunic was a lightweight, loose garment; a cloak was heavier. In Jewish law & tradition, you were permitted to take someone’s tunic as security for a debt. You could not, however, take their cloak and keep it beyond nightfall as it would be cold and they would need it. (This was based on rabbinical interpretation of Deut. 24:12-13.)
Similarly under Roman law the occupying soldiers could recruit any non-citizen of Rome and demand that the person carry their bags. However this was limited to a distance of only one mile, after which the person was free to go; they could not legally demand two miles from the person.
Now how do those situations jive with your claim that turning the other cheek was a taunt?
You mean like unscrewing the top of the container off?
While it’s under pressure and liable to pop at the slightest disturbance? Let me guess... you also check roman candles that fail to ignite by visually inspecting the inside of the tube?
The other guy on here was correct: You pop it with a BB gun from a safe distance.
To be precise, although it never specifically says that Jesus baptized anyone, he did command his disciples to go out and make other disciples, baptizing them in his name in addition to that of Father and the Spirit.
In the original Greek and Hebrew Hell=Sheol=Hades=Gehenna=Tartarus. They all mean 'grave' not 'place where God tortures people for eternity'.
No, that (hell) is the lake of fire, created for the devil, death, and hades; anyone who is on the devil’s side will share this same fate. This is the “second death”.
What, did you not actually read the book of Revelation or something?
And no, Jesus never went to hell. His physical body was in the grave (sheol or hades) for three days, but he never went to hell. In fact, he even said before he died that he (his spirit) would be in paradise that very day.
And what if someone didn’t use quite enough dry ice or let too much gas escape before they capped it and it swells up tight as a drum but not quite full enough to pop?
The “controlled” property of a fuse is that you can attach one to a fully-assembled explosive device and it doesn’t start burning until you light one end.
Re:He can be shut down rather easily.
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
...except that he is employing ghostwriters who write original material, so he isn’t plagiarizing at all. It is the students who are plagiarizing if they put their name on the paper and turn it in claiming that they wrote it.
Try putting a 5oz lead fishing weight in one of these and let it go off. Walk up to aftermath and observe the weight has moved 5inches. THEY ARE HARMLESS!
The fishing weight doesn’t move because it’s not in the way of the expanding gases, dipshit. Try taping them all over the surface of the bottle if you really believe the shit you just typed.
Hey, though, here’s an idea to test your claim that won’t probably result in somebody getting seriously hurt or killed.
The amount of force required to pop the 2 liter soda bottle is not powerful enough to propel a projectile to a significant amount of speed to cause any real damage.
Take a marble or lead fishing weight small enough to fit into a large, long straw (such as the one from an empty pixie stick with both ends cut off). Put the weight into the straw, aim it at a nearby window, and blow as hard as you can into the straw.
Now make a 2L bottle pop by blowing into it. I’m waiting...
No, he means hydrochloric. It eats aluminum very rapidly and releases a lot of hydrogen gas.
2Al + 6HCl --> 2AlCl3 + 3H2
I know because I had the pleasure of watching someone pour concentrated muriatic acid into a foil catering pan (much thicker than normal aluminum foil). It was running out the bottom within seconds.
And they passed it. Despite the Republicans unanimously opposing it.
You only prove my point. Democrats gained so much power that they can push anything they want through even if the Republicans do manage to mount a concerted and unanimous opposition. It’s their own Democrat colleagues who derail the process by not falling into line, not the Republicans.
Not if Dewey was being sarcastic in the first quote. You assume that Dewey approved of the “collective society” he predicted in which free thinking was a liability.
Voting against your party is not the same thing as voting against your party for cloture. They really are lockstep when it comes to that.
Eh? Somebody apparently needs to inform Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, and Kit Bond – they sided with the Democrats to get cloture on the jobs bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, perhaps I misunderstood something but from where in the passage do you infer that this sort of behavior was ok?
The solution you propose is wholly inadequate; certain rights are obtained by marriage as far as your relationship with your partner: who can make medical decisions for whom, for one example.
Personally I say that “marriage” needs to be dismissed entirely as a religious term (even if it isn’t innately a religious word, it has always - even when used culturally rather than religiously - referred to the union of a man to a woman, and that is considered religious). Replace it statutorily with “civil union” and do a global search-and-replace to substitute the new term for the old one (it wouldn’t be quite that simple but I think you at least get my meaning).
All the complaints that “civil unions aren’t the same as marriage” would become moot. Of course Christians - or anyone else - would still be able to go to their religious entity of choice and have a ceremony and get a paper that says they are “MARRIED” (as endorsed by that religious entity); the difference would be that the document would then be meaningless in any legal sense. If a church decided to give papers to gays saying that they were “married”, other churches could denounce them as not real marriages and this religious squabble would have no bearing whatsoever on their tax, medical, etc. status because as long as they had the gov’t-issued papers that said “Civil Union” they’d be just the same off legally as any married couple who had the same set of papers.
Plus, you could offer the same Civil Union legal status to relatives living together, giving them significant benefits in terms of inheritance, taxation, medical decisions, and so on which are currently unobtainable to them because a marriage would be incestuous.
And what, in your expert opinion, was the context of the similar commands to offer someone your cloak as well if they demanded your tunic or to carry bags two miles if they demanded you carry them one?
Ok, I’ll just tell you.
A tunic was a lightweight, loose garment; a cloak was heavier. In Jewish law & tradition, you were permitted to take someone’s tunic as security for a debt. You could not, however, take their cloak and keep it beyond nightfall as it would be cold and they would need it. (This was based on rabbinical interpretation of Deut. 24:12-13.)
Similarly under Roman law the occupying soldiers could recruit any non-citizen of Rome and demand that the person carry their bags. However this was limited to a distance of only one mile, after which the person was free to go; they could not legally demand two miles from the person.
Now how do those situations jive with your claim that turning the other cheek was a taunt?
Shh, he’s obviously trying to get someone to Godwin the discussion.
Papieren, bitte!
You mean like unscrewing the top of the container off?
While it’s under pressure and liable to pop at the slightest disturbance? Let me guess... you also check roman candles that fail to ignite by visually inspecting the inside of the tube?
The other guy on here was correct: You pop it with a BB gun from a safe distance.
I knew you were old from your user ID, but 1500 years old?
To be precise, although it never specifically says that Jesus baptized anyone, he did command his disciples to go out and make other disciples, baptizing them in his name in addition to that of Father and the Spirit.
In the original Greek and Hebrew Hell=Sheol=Hades=Gehenna=Tartarus. They all mean 'grave' not 'place where God tortures people for eternity'.
No, that (hell) is the lake of fire, created for the devil, death, and hades; anyone who is on the devil’s side will share this same fate. This is the “second death”.
What, did you not actually read the book of Revelation or something?
And no, Jesus never went to hell. His physical body was in the grave (sheol or hades) for three days, but he never went to hell. In fact, he even said before he died that he (his spirit) would be in paradise that very day.
I won’t argue with that...
McCain was the kiss of death to McCain.
And what if someone didn’t use quite enough dry ice or let too much gas escape before they capped it and it swells up tight as a drum but not quite full enough to pop?
Percussion grenade.
Where is your fuse now?
It’s also not fully assembled until then, and it cannot be stored in that state for any reasonable length of time. The dry ice will evaporate.
Lot was a hero in the Bible, spared from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for befriending an angle.
Was it acute angle?
The “controlled” property of a fuse is that you can attach one to a fully-assembled explosive device and it doesn’t start burning until you light one end.
...except that he is employing ghostwriters who write original material, so he isn’t plagiarizing at all. It is the students who are plagiarizing if they put their name on the paper and turn it in claiming that they wrote it.
P.S. Hydrochloric acid = toilet bowl cleaner, if you’re planning on doing your shopping at your typical run-of-the-mill Wal Mart.
Hence the “Works” bomb: Works toilet bowl cleaner (HCl) and (aluminum, not tin) tinfoil.
Try putting a 5oz lead fishing weight in one of these and let it go off. Walk up to aftermath and observe the weight has moved 5inches. THEY ARE HARMLESS!
The fishing weight doesn’t move because it’s not in the way of the expanding gases, dipshit. Try taping them all over the surface of the bottle if you really believe the shit you just typed.
Hey, though, here’s an idea to test your claim that won’t probably result in somebody getting seriously hurt or killed.
The amount of force required to pop the 2 liter soda bottle is not powerful enough to propel a projectile to a significant amount of speed to cause any real damage.
Take a marble or lead fishing weight small enough to fit into a large, long straw (such as the one from an empty pixie stick with both ends cut off). Put the weight into the straw, aim it at a nearby window, and blow as hard as you can into the straw.
Now make a 2L bottle pop by blowing into it. I’m waiting...
No, he means hydrochloric. It eats aluminum very rapidly and releases a lot of hydrogen gas.
2Al + 6HCl --> 2AlCl3 + 3H2
I know because I had the pleasure of watching someone pour concentrated muriatic acid into a foil catering pan (much thicker than normal aluminum foil). It was running out the bottom within seconds.
And they passed it. Despite the Republicans unanimously opposing it.
You only prove my point. Democrats gained so much power that they can push anything they want through even if the Republicans do manage to mount a concerted and unanimous opposition. It’s their own Democrat colleagues who derail the process by not falling into line, not the Republicans.
Possibly. If it is near other houses, you are endangering them, and it is fraud if you try to collect insurance for it afterward.
Not if Dewey was being sarcastic in the first quote. You assume that Dewey approved of the “collective society” he predicted in which free thinking was a liability.
Bonus points if you can bring Chuck Norris in to testify that.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just Google the airport’s official website? It has a maps & directions section with layout plans of the terminals... took me about 5 seconds to find it in the left-hand menu.
Voting against your party is not the same thing as voting against your party for cloture. They really are lockstep when it comes to that.
Eh? Somebody apparently needs to inform Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, and Kit Bond – they sided with the Democrats to get cloture on the jobs bill.
That was my point. Perhaps you should investigate the other two examples I gave.