No, he specifically said "vein." See?
UYM: I’m not going to battle “wits” with somebody who continues to use the Lord’s name in vein.
UYM is against intravenous Lord usage. Probably opposes "mainline" denominations for the same reason. :-)
Well Larry, sometimes autocorrect does some interesting things.
Time to put the nail in the coffin for this little roundup.
From the NY Times, June 2010:
“Marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, whose ‘relationships can be either uniquely dangerous or uniquely fruitful,’ she explained in an e-mail message. ‘Thus it makes sense to have an institution dedicated to structuring and channeling them.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05beliefs.html
Then from Miss Tushnet herself September, 2010:
“And now the promised follow-up, in which I talk about what I think the most beautiful argument is in favor of gay marriage: It gives gay people a home.”
...
“Gay marriage promises that, for those of us lucky enough to grow up with parents in a loving/good-enough marriage, we truly can fit our own futures and dreams into the family story we grew up with. We can step into our parents’ shoes. You all know that I think this promise is based on some really false beliefs about sex difference and family structure, but believe me, I feel the power and attraction of the promise.”
http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html
It appears Miss Tushnet has some explaining to do, and why she continues to push “Catholic” lesbian views as being “OK” so long as it’s “look but don’t touch”. Honey-laced... better for gullible Christians to swallow that bitter pill I suppose.
Paul warned us about people like Miss Tushnet. Good night all.
If he had said: I’m not going to battle “wits” with somebody who continues to use the Lord’s name in vane. would he have been against the use of it determining the wind direction?