 | | 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)
| | | | | | |
