The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread VIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, that is how it is used in law - but as I said, if it is not used that way in the Bible, then the Bible says nothing about oral sex.

Nothing but love but... Well given the KJB and common law were written at the same time in the same tongue, it seems to me the requirement to prove the razor is on those who assume a different meaning.
 
Nothing but love but... Well given the KJB and common law were written at the same time in the same tongue, it seems to me the requirement to prove the razor is on those who assume a different meaning.

Assuming the KJV uses the word "sodomy", yes. I don't recall that it does (though could be wrong). Also, as one is a translation, the original source can be checked.
 
That is the definition used in many laws passed within the past few centuries, but there is very little basis for it. It may be vaguely related to Christian traditions, but is completely irrelevant in determining what should or should not be permissible to a bible believing Christian.



KJV does use the term Sodomites in a few places, but as translations for words that have no connection to Sodom and don't fit your definition. Only a few crazies argue that KJV is superior to the original manuscripts. Most people would not care how a nearly 400 year old text (or its later revisions many confuse for it) mistranslates the term.

It may also be worth noting that most anti-sodomy laws in the US originally applied only to homosexuals but happened to be worded broadly enough that they were much latter applied between heterosexuals too.
 
For those who have to write social science and humanties papers:

Do you read absolutely all the sources you cite in your bibliography? Or do you feck a few in that are on topic for good measure?
 
For those who have to write social science and humanties papers:

Do you read absolutely all the sources you cite in your bibliography? Or do you feck a few in that are on topic for good measure?

Sounds like bull.
 
For those who have to write social science and humanties papers:

Do you read absolutely all the sources you cite in your bibliography? Or do you feck a few in that are on topic for good measure?
If absolutely pressed for time I might not read the whole thing, but certainly read at the very least the parts that deal with the topic on which I am citing them.
 
If absolutely pressed for time I might not read the whole thing, but certainly read at the very least the parts that deal with the topic on which I am citing them.
This. I'll often just skim something if I'm in a hurry, but I definitely read the sections I'm actually citing.
 
Has there ever been a recorded instance of a military unit being completely obliterated in combat (i.e. every single member killed in action)?
 
Has there ever been a recorded instance of a military unit being completely obliterated in combat (i.e. every single member killed in action)?
Custer at the Little Big Horn.
 
Has there ever been a recorded instance of a military unit being completely obliterated in combat (i.e. every single member killed in action)?

When those 300 spartans all died.
 
Has there ever been a recorded instance of a military unit being completely obliterated in combat (i.e. every single member killed in action)?

The retreat from Kabul had only two survivors and they were from the same regiment, so I guess the others were wiped out.
 
Napoleon went into Russia with a massive army and came up with only 25% of it as I recall. So I'm sure entire units were wiped out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom