Comments on: Book Review http://www.thurible.net/20080711/book-review/ The Blog of the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:14:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Rosemary http://www.thurible.net/20080711/book-review/comment-page-1/#comment-6256 Rosemary Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:41:53 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5492#comment-6256 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? 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?

]]> By: ryan http://www.thurible.net/20080711/book-review/comment-page-1/#comment-6241 ryan Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:44:11 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5492#comment-6241 Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.thurible.net/20080711/book-review/comment-page-1/#comment-6129 Anonymous Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:02:02 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5492#comment-6129 We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate. We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

]]> By: Peter O http://www.thurible.net/20080711/book-review/comment-page-1/#comment-6124 Peter O Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:09:24 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5492#comment-6124 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). <a href="http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/07/02/the-lambeth-listening-resource-a-review/" rel="nofollow">I wrote my own review here</a>. 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.

]]>