XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion   
   From: fnord2k@yahoo.com   
      
   In article <7943568.0402150536.471e4c4@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   Winn  wrote:   
      
   > William Klee  wrote in message   
   > news:<140220042346492838%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...   
   > > In article <7943568.0402141807.349eb33d@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   > > Winn  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > William Klee  wrote in message   
   > > > news:<130220042244051879%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...   
   > > > > In article <7943568.0402131635.22b1aac3@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   > > > > Winn  wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > > William Klee  wrote in message   
   > > > > > news:<130220041337354693%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...   
   > > > > > > In article <7943568.0402130652.74172485@posting.google.com>, Robert   
   > > > > > > B.   
   > > > > > > Winn  wrote:   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > William Klee  wrote in message   
   > > > > > > > news:<130220040415200767%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...   
   > > > > > > > > In article <7943568.0402121817.6bf7c77d@posting.google.com>,   
   > Robert   
   > > > > > > > > B.   
   > > > > > > > > Winn  wrote:   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > William Klee  wrote in message   
   > > > > > > > > > news:<120220041242179994%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...   
   > > > > > > > > > > In article <7943568.0402111424.8d8aa8d@posting.google.com>,   
   > >  Robert   
   > > > > > > > > > > B.   
   > > > > > > > > > > Winn  wrote:   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > William Klee  wrote in message   
   > > > > > > > > > > > news:<100220041730409085%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > In article   
   > ,   
   > >  Mark K.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Bilbo  wrote:   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > And so upon Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:27:31 -0800 didst   
   > Robert   
   > >  B.   
   > >  Winn   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > speak   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > thusly:   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mark K. Bilbo"  wrote in   
   message   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > news:...   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:27:10 -0800 didst   
   > >  Robert B.   
   > >  Winn   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> speak   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> thusly:   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Al Klein  wrote in message   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >   
   > news:...   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> On 7 Feb 2004 15:27:08 -0800,   
   > >  rbwinn47@mybluelight.com   
   > > > > > >  (Robert   
   > > > > > >  B.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Winn) posted in alt.atheism:   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> And have you gone there and walked through   
   > the   
   > > > >  tunnel?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >I don't need to go there and walk through the   
   > >  tunnel to   
   > >  know it   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >exists.  I have read the book of Isaiah.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Then you "know" that 600,000 men, their wives   
   > and   
   > > > >  children   
   > > > >  "escaped"   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> from Egypt and spent 40 years living in the   
   > desert,   
   > >  even   
   > > > > > >  though   
   > > > > > >  it   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> never happened.  Making you a liar, at best.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >The same could be said of New York City   
   > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Nope - no one is claiming that there's a   
   > tunnel   
   > >  running   
   > > > > > >  from   
   > > > > > >  57th   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Street to 125th Street under Central Park.   
   > But   
   > >  it   
   > >  someone   
   > > > > > > > >  did   
   > > > > > > > >  I'd   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> tell him he's just as insane as you are.   
   > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >I was talking about the entire city.  How can   
   > you   
   > > > >  prove it   
   > > > >  exists   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >to   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >someone who has never been there?   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Why would I want to?  Cities exist.  Ordinary   
   > claims   
   > > > >  don't   
   > > > >  require   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> extraordinary proof.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Exactly my sentiments.  Here is an ordinary   
   > scripture   
   > > > >  from   
   > > > >  the   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Bible.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Luke 2:5  To be taxed with Mary his espoused   
   > wife,   
   > >  being   
   > > > > > >  great   
   > > > > > >  with   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > child.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Which scripture in the original does not include   
   > the   
   > >  word   
   > >  "child."   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What was wrong with Luke anyway? Why'd he leave   
   the   
   > >  word   
   > > > >  out?   
   > > > >  Was   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> he   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> stupid?   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Just read chapter one of Luke and you will find   
   > out   
   > >  he   
   > > > >  was   
   > > > >  not   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why didn't he use the word "child" in that verse   
   > you   
   > >  love   
   > >  to   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > quote?   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope you're wearing your earplugs, because the silence   
   > will   
   > >  be   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > deafening.   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > Well, as a matter of fact, he did.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Purely in the sense of he didn't.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > Being a prophet of God, it was   
   > > > > > > > > > > > revealed to him that his words would be translated into   
   > >  English in   
   > > > > > > > > > > > 1611 as, great with child, so he was even more motivated   
   > to   
   > >  write   
   > > > > > > > > > > > what   
   > > > > > > > > > > > he wrote.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > You have a cite or quote to prove that? No? Didn't think   
   you   
   > >  did.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > Yes, we have Luke 1:41 in which Luke makes the same   
   > description of   
   > > > > > > > > > John the Baptist while he was in his mother's womb.  So are   
   > you   
   > > > > > > > > > going   
   > > > > > > > > > to claim that you cannot discern that Jesus Christ was a   
   child   
   > > > > > > > > > while   
   > > > > > > > > > he was in his mother's womb?   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > I don't see why a fictional woman couldn't have a fictional   
   > child,   
   > > > > > > > > but   
   > > > > > > > > until it's born, it's a fictional fetus.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > What a surprise.  Why don't you go   
   > > > > > > > > > pretend that you are feeble minded to someone else.   
   > > > > > > > >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)