• Revised Commenting Policy

    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.

4 responses to “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar

    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).

    I wrote my own review here.

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Advent is Nigh

    Hard to believe that I am chosing Advent hymns o­nce again. Choosing hymns is hard most of the year, but not right now. Advent has good music and some very good hymns, but not many and it o­nly lasts four weeks. They slot in pretty easily.

  • Book Club

    A good meeting of the Book Club last night, discussing Iris Murdoch's The Bell. I am not sure that we ever decided what the Bell itself represented, if anything, but the conversation along the way was interesting.  I was the o­nly man there, as usual. Do men read fiction?Part of the discussion became focussed o­n…

  • Old Skills

    For reasons too complicated to go into here, I need to revive computer programming skills that I last used 20 years ago. I have a particular task, to do with mapping the local council wards, which I think can o­nly be perfomed using Prolog. I was always fascinated with this logic based language but never terribly competent.…

  • Reaping the Whirlwind

    I am interested in a metaphor that is doing the rounds at the moment. Clare Short has said that Tony Blair is now reaping the whirlwind. This is in relation to the terrorist attacks that seem to have become more likely since the war in Iraq.The metaphor comes from the Bible (Hosea 8:7) and is…