🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> 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.


No, I'm not saying that at all.


-- 
****************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226          *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it?                                    *
****************************************************