🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 2, 1:39�pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 6:09 am, Linda Fox <linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:32:34 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 1, 6:48?am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
> >>>> in alt.atheism:
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 9:07?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Steve O" <nospamh...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:6feg2oFb88s6U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:03071fc3-e432-49b6-a4a5-c22bd4a879ab@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 9:45?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 10:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 1:19 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 12:11 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 9:59 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:85ce5d7c-67c2-4090-8fd1-14d9b48f203d@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are only two commandments in the Law of Christ:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor as thyself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I draw the line at giving my neighbour hand jobs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as he will no doubt be relieved to hear).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who engages in homosexuality does not love the other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> person,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since he is contributing to that person's damnation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No evidence backs up this silly claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you take it up with Einstein when he returns, that idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with me.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Einstein be interested in homosexuality?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would Jesus?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> All homosexuals will be judged by Jesus, the same as with sinners of
> >>>>>>>>>> any kind.
> >>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>>> Why don't we just wait for him before judging them then?
> >>>>>>>>> I happen to think that if anyone needs judging it is the liars and
> >>>>>>>>> hypocrites. ?But you don't see me campaigning to remove their human
> >>>>>>>>> rights.
> >>>>>>>> Well, yes, I do. ? Like other atheists you campaign for abortion,
> >>>>>>>> which removes the right to live of the people who are killed.
> >>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>> Stop being such an idiot.
> >>>>>>> Why do you equate atheism with pro-abortionism?
> >>>>>>> They are not the same thing.
> >>>>>>> You have already been corrected in your mistaken belief that all atheists
> >>>>>>> are pro-abortion, so why do you insist on lying?
> >>>>>> We may be (and I am) pro-choice, but none, AFAIK, are pro-abortion.
> >>>>> Pro-choice today is used interchangably with pro-abortion.
> >>>> Only by liars, particularly the liars who call themselves pro-life, but
> >>>> prove by their politics that they love killing people.
> >>>>> You are
> >>>>> not pro-choice because you are opposed to the choices that would be
> >>>>> made by any children killed by abortion.
> >>>> Children are not killed by abortion.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Well, here we are at another word besides gay that atheists are trying
> >>> to change the meaning of. Fortunately for Christian people, we have
> >>> the Bible.
> >>> Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of
> >>> Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called
> >>> Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
> >>> 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
> >>> So do you really think you are going to be able to change the meaning?
> >> How do you know what it meant in the original language? What you have
> >> there is the 17th-century way of saying "she was very pregnant".
> >> Unless you can prove that the original language (what is it, Greek?)
> >> actually used a word which definitely says the unborn which she was
> >> carrying was a "child" (though even those who permit abortion do not
> >> deny it by the time it reaches that point) you haven't proved
> >> anything.
>
> >> The gospel of Luke wasn't written in English, you know (do you?)
>
> >> Linda ff- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > The original language was Aramaic. �Luke wrote his epistle in Greek.
> > There was nobody back then pretending to be feeble minded like
> > athiests of today do.
>
> I looked at the original Greek.
>
> The original (Romanized) version of Luke 2:5 is:
>
> "apographo sun Maria ho mnesteuo auto gune on egkuos"
>
> 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.
Robert B. Winn