XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion
From: askme@netins.net
"Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
news:7943568.0402291255.bab363c@posting.google.com...
> "MrD Pstychologist \(retired\)" wrote in message
news:...
>
> > oppressiveness,
> > > > > > > > > > then yes, I will continue to do so forever. After all,
> > there is no
> > > > > > > > > > reason to believe that someone that has been dead for
2000
> > years
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > return, except as an exhibit in a museum.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I do not think anyone will be able to influence you
other
> > than
> > > > > > > > > > > Satan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but a fictional character out of your mythology
has
> > no
> > > > > > > > > > influence on me. You have never even attempted to
present
> > objective
> > > > > > > > > > evidence that your mythology is based on fact.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > until Jesus Christ destroys the wicked by fire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Be sure to wear your asbestos long johns. You will be
> > needing them
> > > > > > > > > > more than I will.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That will probably get your attention.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And yours, since according to your beliefs, you will be
> > burning at
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > tims.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert b. Winn
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that
you
> > can lie,
> > > > > > > > > > call people names, insult them, and run away and hide
behind
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > apron
> > > > > > > > > > strings of your personal beliefs. Normal for you, I
will
> > admit.
> > > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > are the only one that is showing any signs of being
feeble
> > minded,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think you are pretending.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mark Sebree
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have never claimed to be unable to tell what a child is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No. You have claimed that I was unable to tell waht a child
> > was. A
> > > > > > > > lie.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have never killed any children.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nobody claimed that you had. But you have claimed that I
have
> > killed
> > > > > > > > children, that I advocate killing children, and support
killing
> > > > > > > > children. All three are lies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I understand what you are saying,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Given your history, it is doubtful that you understand
anything.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > accuse people who are not involved in these things of
being
> > feeble
> > > > > > > > > minded.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, I accuse people that cannot tell reality from fantasy,
and
> > that
> > > > > > > > insists on lying after being shown and told the truth to be
> > feeble
> > > > > > > > minded. And that was only after you started calling me
that.
> > What's
> > > > > > > > more, you actually fit the definition (posted above), since
you
> > are
> > > > > > > > showing a deficiency in intelligence, as well as a lack of
> > intelligent
> > > > > > > > forethought or consideration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, your own posts provide evidence that you may well be
feeble
> > > > > > > > minded. They certainly provide enough evidence of your
lies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I did not say that you were feeble minded. I said that
you
> > were
> > > > > > > > > pretending to be feeble minded.
> > > > > > > > > Robert b. winn
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Either way, it is still a lie. Either statement can be
proven
> > false
> > > > > > > > by simply reading my posts. They show an abundance of
> > intelligence,
> > > > > > > > an strong will, intelligent consideration and forethought,
and a
> > > > > > > > resolute disposition. The exact opposite of "feeble
> > mindedness".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, my previous statement is proven again. All you can do
is
> > lie,
> > > > > > > > call people names, and run away.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mark Sebree
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what was your forethought about this secular dictionary
> > definition?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > child n. 1. an unborn or recently born person.
> > > > > > > Merriam-Webster dictionary 1970
> > > > > > > Robert B. winn
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That it is not universally accepted, since it does not appear in
> > most
> > > > > > dictionaries of the English Language, and does not appear as the
> > first
> > > > > > definition (for some reason, you seem to place some importance
in
> > the
> > > > > > position) in any other dictionary I have seen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, the definition that I have posted on multiple
occassions
> > does
> > > > > > appear in every version of the English Language dictionaries
that I
> > > > > > have seen so far. Therefore, it is more universally accepted,
and
> > in
> > > > > > all likelihood, is an older definition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason for this deduction is that changes to the language
(any
> > > > > > language) tend to spread outward from the area of origin, so
older
> > > > > > definitions are more widespread than newer ones. This process
in
> > > > > > enhanced by our modern technology, but there is still a lag
time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark Sebree
> > > > >
> > > > > So how do you explain how the word child is defined in this
scripture
> > > > > from the Bible? Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused
wife,
> > > > > being great with child.
> > > >
> > > > It isnšt defined like that.
> > >
> > > Sorry, we know that the book of Luke has been in existence for nearly
> > > 2000 years. Everyone up until now understood what a child is. Why
> > > are you pretending that you do not?
> >
> > Yet the writer of Luke didn't use the word 'child' in the verses that
you
> > are quoting all the time as if they prove something. They don't. They
say,
> > in the language of the author of Luke, that Mary was pregnant (swelling
> > inside).
>
> So you are claiming that Luke, who was a physician, could not tell
> what was causing the swelling in Mary's womb. I just cannot imagine
> Luke being as stupid as a pro-abortion person of today.
No, I'm claiming that Luke used the greek word for pregnant at the time. If
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
