 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be regarded (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Maybe at this point I need to fall on my sword and admit that I don't understand quite what you're getting at. What is the flaw, exactly, in the original example? Let me try again, in the spirit of redundancy: Within a single framework, three (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) I'm saying that your examples are the exact same as the model you are criticizing. You cite three supporting people (from a single source: Lugnet) as an example of a more believable evidence, and I'll I am doing is pointing out that that is (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Well, now I'm confused. Granted, the four magi Dave, Todd, Tim, and Jake are four LUGNET sources, but to LUGNET-savvy people they represent four discrete voices. However, to a non-LUGNET person, all four are subsumed under LUGNET and therefore (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) I am still working on a full reply to (URL) your post>, but let me inject here briefly. That there are 4 Gospels does not add any form of credibility to the veracity of the Gospel (Good News) to most Christians, and certainly not me. In fact, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | BRUCE! Don't reply! Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Now THERE'S an understatement. I finally re-read the original formulation of my example, and the error practically bopped me in the nose. I'll see about reworking it. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
