Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Dave Yadallee denies reality, bears false witness
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:38:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <v53vo9$36h55$1@dont-email.me>
References: <xn0on0tk1ebn7yw000@post.eweka.nl>
 <v518pd$2j1fj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v526gt$1q0q$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
 <xn0onbzr5pnx0q4002@post.eweka.nl>
 <v53num$1ois$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
 <v53u5e$367al$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:38:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="737b2e367de46063502378b42b063a7a";
	logging-data="3359909"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YiqYsLzgkGzQU6TkFVd7mI7MRaC7KT0E="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:h+GW8lZKxCaa0gZqd7tpn1VcOTo=
	sha1:fcRa/w9FPnv63ORgj9NQIoVLISw=
Bytes: 2805


Daniel declared:

> The Doctor wrote on 21/6/24 9:25 pm:
>> In article <xn0onbzr5pnx0q4002@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> But Dave, the Bible really does say nothing about Jewus
>>> condemning "homosexuals" and most definitely not in Romans I (As
>>> has been pointed out to you already.) So any person claiming
>>> that he did is either delusional or hasn't read the Bible. This
>>> is a simple fact. Anything else is a lie.
>>> 
>>> If you are only repeating what your Pastor told you, point him
>>> in our direction and we will correct him!
>>> 
>> 
>> Ever read Romans 1?
>> 
> Just for YOU, Gobble-de-gook, from YOUR BIBLE of choice, so YOU know of 
> which we converse ....
> 
> Where does it mention homosexuals, Gobble-de-gook??
> 
> https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-1/   Roman 1
> 

SNIP

> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, 
> burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which 
> is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error 
> which was meet.
> 

I think this is the verse the idiot was thinking of.

But it isn’t quoting Jesus, and doesn’t mention anyone condemning
themselves to eternal damnation. 

Is it even about homosexuality? Well, in wider context, it
seems to be referring to ritual sex acts as part of pagan temple
ceremonies. (Perhaps Paul was just too naïve to believe men
had sex with each other for pleasure!)

So, the idiot is wrong on all three counts. That’s typical for him.

-- 
solar penguin