Can I suggest you head over to Akma’s blog to read his post about the death of Aaron Swartz. It is moving and thoughtful and expresses more eloquently than I can how I feel about this death.
Most people won’t know Aaron’s name. However we all get the benefit of his work.
As Akma says, “the churches have an intrinsic interest in communication, free communication, profligate communication.”
Hear, hear.
I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).
We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.
Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf
I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.
It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’
The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?
The day begins with the discovery that someone (a member of the Orthodox church community who use the church sometimes) left a box of candles on a heater yesterday. The mess and stench greet me when I go into church at 0730 to get ready for the early service.
There was an outbreak of chiasmus in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, with this comment coming from David McLetchie: “Wouldn't it be ironic if … the criminals can be smokers but the smokers will become criminals?”Very clever. Of such stuff preachers are made and preachers make stuff of.
That last blog entry about the Election is an example of an apophatic blog entry. Not many of them about in the blogsphere.
I'd just like you to note how good I am being at not blogging anything about the Episcopal Election in this diocese.Lead us not into temptation.
Leave a Reply