XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: nachobiznez@all.com   
      
   "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   news:7943568.0405170736.5c168cb1@posting.google.com...   
   > "MrD"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   > > news:7943568.0405152216.5a44bf3d@posting.google.com...   
   > > > "MrD"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   > > > > news:7943568.0405142227.5be8cd31@posting.google.com...   
   > > > > > "MrD"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   > > > > > > news:7943568.0405132223.5b2dd4c8@posting.google.com...   
   > > > > > > > "MrD"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   > > > > > > > > news:7943568.0405111824.750bb117@posting.google.com...   
   > > > > > > > > > "MrD"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in   
   message   
   > > > > > > > > > > news:7943568.0405110601.69db8795@posting.google.com...   
   > > > > > > > > > > > "MrD"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > "Light Templar"  > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > In every post you make.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blithering idiots do not pretend that they   
   cannot   
   > >  tell   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what a child is?  Thank you for noticing.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave you the professional definition of what a   
   child   
   > >  is,   
   > > > > > >  from a   
   > > > > > >  peer   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > reviewed medical publication.  There is nothing to   
   > >  pretend,   
   > > > > > >  liar   
   > > > > > >  Robert.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Winn has to pretend he doesn't know what a child is,   
   > >  else   
   > > > >  his   
   > > > >  God is   
   > > > > > > > >  a   
   > > > > > > > >  child   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > killer and the people he persecutes aren't.  Puts   
   him in   
   > >  a   
   > > > >  nasty   
   > > > >  position   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > that he doesn't want to realize is actually the   
   reality   
   > >  of   
   > > > >  the   
   > > > >  situation.   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have to pretend anything.  I am not killing   
   any   
   > >  children.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > You pretend to not know what a child is.  You even   
   misquote   
   > >  the   
   > >  scriptures   
   > > > > > > > > > > in an attempt to justify your accusations of others.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > No, I do not misquote scriptures.  For instance, we have   
   Luke   
   > >  2:5   
   > >  To   
   > > > > > > > > > be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with   
   child.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Which is a misrepresentation of the translation 'being great   
   > >  with   
   > >  child.'   
   > > > > > > > > You already knew that, though, so you are bearing false   
   witness.   
   > > > > > > > > Again.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Well, you might want to discuss the translation with Luke   
   after   
   > >  the   
   > > > > > > > resurrection.  My belief is that Luke would approve the way it   
   was   
   > > > > > > > translated.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > If we have to wait for the resurrection, then I think it is only   
   > >  fair   
   > >  that   
   > > > > > > you refrain from using that personal translation until after the   
   > > > > > > resurrection when you have cleared it with 'Luke'.  You will be   
   > >  surprised to   
   > > > > > > find out that you might not be speaking with Luke, however.  You   
   > >  really   
   > >  seem   
   > > > > > > to have no idea who actually wrote the scriptures.  Someone   
   today   
   > >  could   
   > > > > > > write the Gospel according to Elvis and state that he'd actually   
   > >  heard   
   > >  these   
   > > > > > > things from Elvis, but since Elvis is dead we couldn't actually   
   > >  confirm   
   > >  any   
   > > > > > > of it.   
   > > > > > > Elvis was resurrected, according to the Gospel of Elvis.   
   > > > > > > I'm sure you believe that too.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > No, I do not believe Elvis has been resurrected yet.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > I do not believe Jesus has been resurrected, yet, either.   
   > > > > I don't believe he ever will.  I've seen no reason to believe so.   
   > > > > Have you?   
   > > >   
   > > > I have no doubt that he is resurrected.   
   > >   
   > > And apparently no reason.   
   >   
   > The reason he was resurrected was so that other people could be   
   resurrected.   
      
   Once again you misunderstand the context.  It was earlier stated that you   
   had no reason to believe in the resurrection.  You have either mistaken the   
   context of that or you are dishonestly changing the context to state the   
   reason for the fabled resurrection, rather than a reason to believe in the   
   fabled resurrection.   
   Why do you do this?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)