Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!felix!daver
From: daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: New question for biblical scholars
Message-ID: <1635@felix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 17:05:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: felix.1635
Posted: Mon Oct  6 17:05:14 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 01:17:41 EDT
References: <1575@felix.UUCP> <1576@felix.UUCP> <414@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 37

In article <414@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes:
>In article <1576@felix.UUCP> I write: 
>>An additional question for soc.motss readers:  Since I'm pretty sure that 
>>homosexual acts ARE specifically condemned in the Bible, how do homosexual
>>christians reconcile the problem?  Do they have special Bibles that have had
>>those references removed, or what?  

>Since Dave mentioned a new church for gays, and since things like Dignity,
>Integrity, and MCC have been around for a long time, it's safe to assume
>that he's merely incredibly ignorant. Perhaps there should be an
>automatically-posted message which, every month or so, summarises the
>following points.
[remainder of article deleted]

My question was based on ignorance, as are most sincere questions.  I hesitate
when using the word "ignorance" because I feel it has taken on a somewhat
negative connotation, and I sense that it was used by Vincent with that inten-
tion.

   I mentioned a new church.  I did not say it was THE FIRST gay church, or
even the first gay church of which I was aware.  I simply said that I had read
about a new gay church, and that it had sparked the discussion that prompted
my question. 
   
   Isn't the phrase "incredibly ignorant"  sort of like "incredibly unique"?
Vince, it's too bad you had to ruin an otherwise superlative article (pun
intended) with the condescending crap in front.  The article is the most com-
plete and useful response that I've seen.  I only wish you had answered by
e-mail as I requested, as it was pure chance that I saw it in this group.

I've been reading news on this net for about a year, and have not seen this
subject discussed before.  If it is frequently discussed in this newsgroup, then
I am sorry for taking up your valuable time and net space with my query.  But
again, if everyone had replied by e-mail, that is ALL the space that would have
been taken up.

Dave