Wonderful. Who's doing such a thing?The point:
The fact that some disagree about a comunication {the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, manual for a Linconln Log house, etc.) is neither a nullification of the referenced document, nor an excuse for ignoring it (although it is a criticism of some of those those in conflict, whether they believe it or are the nullifiers).
Presenting the argument, "Look at all the apparent adherents to (The Bible, the Constitution, etc.) who disagree about it! Therefore, it cannot be an effective guide!" is obfuscation.
I suggest you go out into the sunlight, this Spring day, take some deep breaths and take a fresh approach.
. . . nor does it particularly recommend the referenced document. Nor did I suggest, in any way, that your Beloved Bible was anything it shouldn't be.Presenting the argument, "Look at all the apparent adherents to (The Bible, the Constitution, etc.) who disagree about it! Therefore, it cannot be an effective guide!" is obfuscation.
A guide is one thing; however, that which has the power to deprive free men of their liberty---i.e., law---should not be simply a guide. Should it?
I suggest you go out into the sunlight, this Spring day, take some deep breaths and take a fresh approach.
I suggest you take your smugness and stick it in a place where that wonderful sunlight doesn't shine.