Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- From: "Paul Roberts" <p.t.roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:38:48 +0100
In news:2943a248983ac8c7743c641a47a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
David Ould spouted forth:
[snip]
>> Fair enough - but you haven't addressed my suggestion (which may be
>> pertinent) that people might misunderstand you because you can be
>> quite brief.
>>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with that. It's when they jump to assumptions
> that are ridiculous that I have a problem, see (for example) Peter
> Lear's recent "I understand evangelicals: you think that God dictated
> the Bible word for word". That sort of nonsense shows a contempt for
> the evangelical position that is very upsetting.
I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there is a
spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being one of them),
and it would have been good if you would have clarified yours.
[snip]
>>> Well then lots of people have more patience than I do.
>>>
>> Are you serious, or playing the martyr?
>>
>
> no, I'm very serious.
Well, you can always work at it :-)
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- From: David Ould
- Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- References:
- Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- From: Paul Roberts
- Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- From: David Ould
- Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- Prev by Date: Re: Vegetarian Christians? (was Re: The crescent and the star)
- Next by Date: Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- Previous by thread: Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- Next by thread: Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
