XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion   
   From: fnordy2k@yahoo.com   
      
   In article <7943568.0404010601.476618d9@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   Winn  wrote:   
      
   > "junegill"  wrote in message   
   > news:...   
   > > "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.   
   >   
   > I do not get involved in adultery.   
      
   S++; non-sequitor. At least it's not a lie; at least I'm going assume   
   it's not a lie. Generous of me, I know, considering your past posting   
   history, but that's the generous kind of guy I am.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)