XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion
From: askme@netins.net
"junegill" wrote in message
news:c4fsc9$4s7$1@hercules.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.
Only a complete idiot would take the above paragraph and reply as if you've
accused him of being involved in adultery. I realise that Winn doesn't
understand what adultery is, but sometimes he really shows just how idiotic
he is. I wouldn't worry too much about him until he begins answering the
same posts twice, as if he's forgotten what he's avoided answering already
and makes a point of avoiding it again.
I think that Winn really does want to control women but he can't even
control himself. I think he is probably afraid of women and the only
relationship he has is with his mother.
MrD
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
