XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion   
   From: junegill@btinternet.com   
      
   "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   news:7943568.0403310758.74cc7df5@posting.google.com...   
   > "junegill"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > > > > > Well, there was this verse in Luke, among others.   Luke 2:5  To   
   be   
   > > > > > taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.   
   > > > > > Robert b. winn   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Still not the words of Jesus.  Incidentally, He did know what   
   adultery   
   > >  was -   
   > > > > don't you remember that He saved an adulterous woman from being   
   stoned   
   > >  to   
   > > > > death?  The famous: 'Let he who is without sin cast the first   
   stone.'   
   > > > > You've cast an awful lot of stones in these newsgroups - are you   
   without   
   > > > > sin?   
   > > >   
   > > > I have not cast any stones, whatsoever.   Jesus Christ was without   
   > > > sin.  What he said to the woman taken in adultery was, Go, and sin no   
   > > > more.  I said the same thing to Mark Seebree.  Mark Seebree said that   
   > > > I was being hateful and oppressive to women.   
   > > > Robert B. Winn   
   > > > Robert B. Winn   
   > >   
   > > You most certainly have cast stones: you've accused Mark of adultery,   
   > > homicide and terrorism.  I asked whether _you_ are without sin, not   
   Jesus   
   > > Christ.  Note that He didn't cast the first, or any, stone at the woman.   
   If   
   > > you think that you have the same authority as Jesus to say what He said,   
   > > then you have delusions of grandeur.  Mark is quite right that you are   
   > > hateful and oppressive to women: you seem to think you have the right to   
   > > dictate to women what they should do with their own bodies and would   
   take   
   > > their bodily autonomy away from them - doesn't get much more hateful and   
   > > oppressive than that.   
   >   
   > Mark Seebree was the one who wrote a long dissertation about his   
   > adulteries.  All that took place up until that time was that I pointed   
   > out that prophecy says that anyone who denies the existence of God and   
   > demands to see a sign is an adulterer, which Mark immediately   
   > confirmed to be true in his case.  So I tell him, Go and commit   
   > adultery no more, and you claim I have been hateful and oppressive.   
      
   That's where your delusions of grandeur come in - telling Mark what to do as   
   though you're Jesus Christ.  You are full of pride (the worst sin), if you   
   think you have the same authority as your Deity.   
      
   > It appears to me that any criticism of adultery is what you consider   
   > to be hateful.   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   No, I do not consider criticism of adultery to be hateful - it's not anyone   
   else's business, but not hateful.  Of course, that's real adultery I'm   
   talking about, as in cheating on one's spouse.  What is hateful, as I said   
   up above, is that you'd take away women's bodily autonomy if you could.   
   --   
   June G   
   # 364   
   http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)