What is in Kelvin's Head?

Revised Commenting Policy

04/08/2012
I’ve posted something like this before but have had to add the final bullet point today. (And have today decided not to allow any further comments from the offender who caused me to add this last point. It seems to me that he has been warned enough).

The following types of comments will be deleted without question.
- Comments which appear to be legitimate but whose posters’ details point to porn sites.
- Comments which contain homophobic epithets. I’m open to intelligent discussion but I’m not running a site which allows people to get away with silly name calling.
- Comments which claim to prove something by quoting a single verse taken out of context from the Bible. Scripture is too precious to me to allow that. This is a place where the Bible is loved and honoured and treasured. Comments which use it as a weapon are unwelcome.
- Comments promoting one Bible translation because all the rest are flawed. Like quite a few people who comment here, my Greek and Hebrew are a bit rusty. However, it was worth learning them as I can now make up my own mind about such matters. Go thou and study likewise.
- Comments promoting or trying to raise money for particular missionary societies.
- Comments disparaging women and in particular comments which undermine my female colleagues. I learn about God from them.
- Comments trying to explain Penal Substution as a theory of Atonement. I know what it means. I know how it works. We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it. It gets boring if you try to explain it to me again.
- Comments in which those of us who are gay are likened to murderers either in the eyes of the commenter or in the eyes of God. To be honest, when it becomes that offensive, I don’t think we are talking enough of the same language for me to want to bother carrying on listening. I’m also not in the business of providing space for that kind of rhetoric. Those who want to make such comments can do so on their own blogs but not on mine.
As I’ve repeatedly said before, I like an intelligent argument and tend to adopt this policy as much for the sake of those others who like a sane corner of the web as for myself.

[Most] Comments welcome.

11 responses to “We drink from our own wells”

fr dougal

27/03/2011

Excellent! 1st class – wanna be Bishop of Edinburgh?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  27/03/2011
  
  So far as I can ascertain, almost everyone wants to be Bishop of Edinburgh.
  
  Reply
Kimberly

27/03/2011

except you, I should think.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  27/03/2011
  
  I love what I do. The job of being bishop of anywhere seems to me to be far more grim than most people realise.
  
  Reply
fr dougal

28/03/2011

Yes, I always think the Bishop’s theme song ought to be “naebuddy loves, awbuddy hates me, think Ah’m gauuny eat worms!”

Reply
Joe

30/03/2011

You took a chance that day Kelvin and it paid off for the good. As a gay man brought up in the RC Church, when I was 17 and very confused I thought that my church and God hated me because of my sexuality (obviously not my choice). I was actually told at that age by a priest in Glasgow that I would go to hell if I had sex with my then lover. I’ve seen many suicides over the years because of the fact that some people I knew could not reconcile their religion with their sexuality. Note I said religion not faith. The God I have a relationship with loves me as I am, whether human beings who claim to know better than me what he thinks of me condemn me does’nt bother me. I’ll let God judge not them.

Reply
Stew

30/03/2011

Fine line between drawing from one’s own well and ignoring all the other wells. Quite often I get the feeling that some people believe everything they need, all of the raw materials, are within and I can imagine that too much faith in one’s own well is the cause of much wayward preaching also. I hope that this lesson, which I am sure worked well in your case, would not become a maxim for general teaching and preaching,
without some safety clauses…. Have I misunderstood?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  30/03/2011
  
  Well, Stew, perhaps you have misunderstood, I’m not sure.
  
  I wasn’t talking about what is necessary and sufficient for salvation, if that’s what you are worried about.
  
  Reply
ryan

30/03/2011

Great post!
Stew: Is the very existence of legitimate ” other wells” not, in and of itself, an argument against the dichotomies and simplistic certainties of the One True Well good old bad old days? I read much of the post as tracing the realisation that “neutral” readings are no such thing, and that the wells of teachers and human authorities are no more (or, of course, less) intrinsically real than our wells. The passage beginning ” I had drunk from” suggests someone adding to their knowledge of wells – not exchanging one set of wells for a single well, and therefore choosing a literally less well-informed world view ;-). Although even that would be a significant experience as other people’s experiences with their own wells might not be things they could usefully communicate to others. The blog post IMHO traces an expansion of (not just) knowledge, the opposite of diminuition from a wider to a smaller view. Although maintaining safety around wells is of course important 😉

Reply
Ruth

01/04/2011

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mabroccoli/5578370888/in/stream

When the sermon was over, he dived round the back, hoping to catch you as you left the laptop. I’m delighted that I’m still reaching a feline audience.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  01/04/2011
  
  Thanks Ruth – very good.
  
  Reply