Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, I was pointing out where jblake47's conclusion doesn't hold to show that his reasoning didn't follow. Your remark only shows you missed the point.

jblake47 writes: The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interpretation of X then there's something wrong/unclear with X. I only said X is UNCLEAR; I have never stated that X is WRONG. You are attacking a straw man; you are addressing an argument I haven't made. However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. Irrelevant. Notice that the only claim I'm making is that X is unclear. Again, you are answering an argument I never made. I haven't assumed that X is wrong or right. The faulty logic lies in the fact that there's an assumption that there is a problem with X. I haven't made that assumption. I'm only concluding that X is unclear. I contend that there's a problem with either A or B. You do? Here's an example of A, B, and X: A = a citizen of England B = a citizen of Australia X = "The Prime Minister is named Kevin" Who has the problem? A or B? I say the statement is unclear, because it doesn't say which Prime Minister is being referred to. fixed typo.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Well, if you want to believe that it's more likely that Sherman, acting as a reporter for American Atheist magazine would make up a quote and set it in a room with reporters, and that Bush's lawyer would respond to allegations that he made a statement that he didn't make as if he had, I certainly can't stop you.

The only one I've heard is pay the market rate or vacate. Cutting some kind of special deal would probably still violate their own fair practices law on leasing public land.

The Bush administration seems to think it took place; they refused to apologize for it, when the reasonable thing to do would have been to state that it didn't happen. Correspondence from Jon Murray, the president of American Atheists at the time, didn't indicate that the conversation never took place: http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm If Bush never said it, any inquiries about it would be answered with something along the lines of "I never said that" or "I was misquoted;" instead, all the responses are along the line of Mr. Bush is religious, and even though he disagrees with atheists he will respect their rights, etc. etc.

According to the Philadelphia Gay News (for some reason at http://www.epgn.com ), discovery has been pushed back 2 months and the projected trial date is now Dec 8, 2009

No Ed, I've explained why. You can't seem to find my explanations. I'll try once more: Person A and B are talking about the meaning of statement X. Both are being sincere, both are equally fluent in the language statement X is written in. A and B disagree quite strongly on the meaning of statement X. Based on the above, I conclude that statement X is not clear. Notice that asking me what part of "statement X" is not clear is not only irrelevant, it's not possible because my example doesn't even include what statement X says or any hint about why A and B disagree.

Quiz time: which president said this after announcing he was running, and about which group: "I don't know that [Americans in this group] should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic." If you didn't complain about the above, why are you starting so late?

Ed, this is another case where I've explained my reasoning a number of times, and you've failed to understand it.

Yes it does, Ed. If people disagree on what a sentence means, that sentence isn't clear. That's what the word means. I don't know what definition you're using; your use of words is often unclear.

Of course it does, Ed. You aren't clear on the meaning of "clear."

There have been at least two disagreements in this thread so far, Ed.

Obviously the passages where Christians disagree on the meaning are the ones that aren't clear, Ed. Atheists don't agree on everything, Ed. You know, just like, oh, all of humanity.

I see your sect does not include the book of Bedrock, whereupon they had a "gay old time," and smoketh Winstons:

Ed, I didn't say they were contradictory, I said they aren't clear. The very fact that different denominations have different opinions on what the bible says about homosexuality is why I'm saying it isn't clear. I'm not referring to any specific passages, I'm pointing to all the different sects that don't agree.

No Ed, but you still can't read.

Ed, I'll recant as soon as all Christians agree on what the bible says about homosexuality.

Merlyn, not every court decision is unanimous. Because the law isn't always clear in what it means. Interesting that you seem to want to pounce on disagreements about interpretations of the Bible, but accept majority rules in other cases when it suits your purpose. You don't seem to realize what I'm arguing. I disagree with some court decisions and agree with others; however, I recognize that court rulings are binding, and merely wishing a court ruling had gone the other way does nothing. Here, some people are trying to say that the bible is clear on something; if it was clear, why is there disagreement on what it means? How does that possibly show that the meaning is clear? I might recognize that a 5-4 court decision is the law, but if someone pointed to a 5-4 decision and said the law was "clear," I'd disagree with that assessment, too. Disagreement in interpretation is pretty much a direct indication that something is NOT clear in my book.

No Ed, you can't understand, and I can't make you understand. Understand?

Ed, you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that Christians don't agree on what the bible says about homosexuality, therefore the bible is not clear. I'm not referring to ANY specific bible passage, I'm looking at real life results.

vol_scouter writes: As much as I disagree with Merlyn, his belief system makes more sense than picking and choosing what is to be taken seriously in the Bible and what is to be ignored. That elevates man to G_d which is clearly wrong. Then I have to ask, vol_scouter, what kind of punishment, if any, do you think the bible requires for homosexuality and/or consensual homosexual acts, and should that be enforced by US law (and if not, why not)?

There is no doubt about the Bible's stance on homosexuality. If there wasn't, Christians wouldn't disagree about it. They do. There is doubt. homosexuality is wrong throughout the Bible. Sects who interpret the meaning differently are simply not right. Well, it's easy to assert ANYTHING by saying "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong," but that does nothing to end real, actual disagreements. It's just an attempt to ignore disagreements and pretend none exist.

Like I said Ed, since different sects of Christianity don't agree, that means it isn't clear.

vol_scouter writes: Homosexuality is a different issue. The Bible is clear on the issue. I disagree; the bible is not clear on the issue, and difference Christian sects have widely different opinions. Judges using tortured logic to require homosexual marriage and legislatures defying the will of the majority of the citizens cannot continue without a backlash. Identical to the situation when interracial marriages were made legal by the courts. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is interpreted only along the lines of the non-establishment clause while the free exercise clause is trampled. There are no free exercise issues raised by having the government recognize a same-sex marriage contract. Having government-recognized divorce for decades has never e.g. required the Catholic church to recognize a civil divorce, or marry a divorcee that the church considers already married.

Ed, marriage has been considered a right since Loving v. Virginia in 1967 and the current president's parents could finally be recognized as married in every US state*. *Though they were divorced by then(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)