🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:58:25 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Aug 3, 8:54?am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 2, 7:23?pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as:
>>
>> >> >> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child.
>>
>> >> >> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the writer of
>> >> >> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people today
>> >> >> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child".
>>
>> >> > Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so feeble
>> >> > minded that he would have believed there was something other than a
>> >> > child in the womb of a pregnant woman. ? Nothing he wrote would
>> >> > indicate that he was feeble minded.
>>
>> >> No, I'm not saying that at all.
>>
>> >Well, you absolutely are. ?You regard me as so stupid that you think
>> >you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in her
>> >womb. ?Why would you treat Luke any different?
>>
>> Once again, you misrepresent the discussion.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>The discussion was whether a pregnant woman has a child in her womb.
>You claimed she did not.

I never claimed anything, but the facts are that both in science and law
a child becomes a child at birth. Your delusions to the contrary do not
change reality.