tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post5194847191003734215..comments2024-02-13T11:11:28.246+00:00Comments on Bishop Alan’s Blog: A chink in the walls of Kafka’s Castle?Bishop Alan Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-50463146064185597702013-02-17T13:12:44.619+00:002013-02-17T13:12:44.619+00:00Yes, Lynette Burrows, comments on your blog have b...Yes, Lynette Burrows, comments on your blog have been very instructive. When one is an Anglican one is exposed to a very attenuated form of homophobia. It's actually quite refreshing, one might say bracing in a way, to get some genuine hatred - at least we know what we're dealing with.<br /><br />One of the big no no's of the recent debate is we mustn't call opponents bigots or homophobes - that, if such a thing were possible, is even worse that the govt's bill. But one struggles to know what one should call some of the people in the opposition camp if not hateful, homophbic and bigoted (I tend to avoid using these terms in debate and discussion because they're not effective but some people kind of describe themselves by their words and demeanor).<br />Craig Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15041142601074251914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-51686107300625061742013-02-15T07:07:59.844+00:002013-02-15T07:07:59.844+00:00Dear Mr Paine, you unreconstructed customs officer...Dear Mr Paine, you unreconstructed customs officer, you (real names welcome on this site) — I've been off in India Feudal Oppressing the poor by helping develop their education system in rural Andhra Pradesh. I can see you've been mainlining on Les Mis!Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-5652281483633274482013-02-12T10:44:59.583+00:002013-02-12T10:44:59.583+00:00Not published, you coward?
"Rise like lions ...Not published, you coward?<br /><br />"Rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number; Ye are many, they are few, ye are many, they are few".<br /><br />Tom Paine <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-56934762347190079552013-02-12T10:11:33.754+00:002013-02-12T10:11:33.754+00:00Why have you got "Liberte Guidant Le Peuple&q...Why have you got "Liberte Guidant Le Peuple" on your site, you hypocrite? You have no right to associate yourself with the people's struggle for freedom from religious tyranny, you feudal oppressor. Resign your orders and join the people under the red flag before you dare to appropriate it. <br />Don't you realise that they're coming for such as you, prelates living on the money wrung from the faces of the poor over hundreds of years. <br /><br />Tom PaineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-55044705905840445012013-02-07T14:22:45.736+00:002013-02-07T14:22:45.736+00:00@Nick I agree with you. Open dialogue is imoportan...@Nick I agree with you. Open dialogue is imoportant.Pozycjowanie Poznanhttp://www.tense.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-38099172509443820312013-01-30T07:16:44.580+00:002013-01-30T07:16:44.580+00:00Yes, David. A ho-ho Philippic by a junior English ...Yes, David. A ho-ho Philippic by a junior English don and film critic. For a scientific review of the former professor of Biology at Stanford's (1971-2011) book by someone who's actually got a biology degree, you could try http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/rethinking-sex or Wikioedia. Why resort to name-calling rather than engage with the argument rationally? I would think because people cannot argue with a sneer.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-36452175917411674442013-01-20T22:09:18.926+00:002013-01-20T22:09:18.926+00:00I was wondering Alan whether you were not in fact ...I was wondering Alan whether you were not in fact the Bishop of Barking?<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/aug/01/scienceandnature.society<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-14949494718411083922013-01-14T21:53:19.861+00:002013-01-14T21:53:19.861+00:00I think I have to say I have found some of the com...I think I have to say I have found some of the comments on this thread unpublishable. Others I have published whilst holding my nose, but found pretty gruesome, whilst indicative of what really motivates the people concerned — simple hatred of and disgust about people different from themselves whom they don't understand and, worse, don't want to understand. God then gets dragooned into the show by a process of reading their prejudices into texts in a schoolboy fashion that, as someone who has studied the scriptures daily in original languages for almost 40 years, is laughable. It's all very depressing, really, but there you are. The "better dead than gay" final comment really is something of a last straw. I hope and pray for a day when such comments are as unacceptable as the racist slander that used to be commonplace in the East End in the 1960's and 70's. I can only be deeply ashamed that it is offered in the name of the Church. If this is what their theology is about it won't get very far, for it conflicts with primary moral laws. The creation is being redeemed into a glorious freedom for all the children of God, in which such morally disgusting sentiments will seem like a bad dream, even to the people who made them.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-14549790463524340772013-01-14T21:48:19.861+00:002013-01-14T21:48:19.861+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-46828306523289354732013-01-14T18:46:50.018+00:002013-01-14T18:46:50.018+00:00So homosexuality is so wrong,it is more wrong that...So homosexuality is so wrong,it is more wrong that killing a baby for no other reason than their sexual preference? Earlier you were suggesting that through Christ people can change - now apparently you don't want to give them the chance! Consider in your arrogance and heartlessness that many Christians draw on the bible in their argument against abortion - are they wrong or you, David?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-70532450223713637972013-01-14T14:26:02.120+00:002013-01-14T14:26:02.120+00:00I am shaking my head because every time Sodom gets...I am shaking my head because every time Sodom gets brought up in these conversations, no one ever seems to get around to the "alternative offer of hospitality" that Lot proposed, namely, "Hey, I know you want these guys here, but how about my prepubescent daughters instead?"<br /><br />It's just not a very good story to claim any victories in moral character on the part of heterosexual behavior.<br /><br />We tend to forget, as much as we rely on the Bible, and as seriously as we might take it, it was not written with us in mind. It was written with the people of that day in mind. So for us to think it represents an absolute moral code for us now, would be, I believe, a mistake. Instead, I choose to use it as how I understand salvation history in the context of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and what I am supposed to do as a result of that. I accept that things get lost in translation because these books were not written with me in mind. Yet, I remain grateful they were written and grateful that salvation history includes me.Kirkepiscatoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02651684515435040529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-17502554987082607402013-01-14T07:26:23.429+00:002013-01-14T07:26:23.429+00:00It is slightly early to say scientists have "...It is slightly early to say scientists have "discovered the cause" of homosexuality, though the general picture is emerging very clearly indeed. As epigenetic aspects are further studied we may expect more clarity still. What is obvious is that it is not essentially behavioural or socially constructed, though both of those aspects come into play in minor ways as people's lives unfold. <br />The Russians, in the dying days of Communism, did indeed spot the hormonal aspect of the matter empirically, and conducted experiments with babies in the womb that seemed to indicate you could prevent gay babies being born by manipulating hormonal — more compassionate than what you proposed. The main drawback was that the precise timing was hard to estimate.<br /><br />Your idea does indicate, however, the serious moral consequences of deciding gay people are abnormal. It's a serious argument for equality, for anyone who takes the sanctity of human life seriously, anyway.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-44618794835273379272013-01-13T23:36:55.196+00:002013-01-13T23:36:55.196+00:00I have just come back from standing four square wi...I have just come back from standing four square with french Catholics, as they held a small manifestion outside the French Embassy in London. Marvellous. <br /><br />Now about the news that scientists have discovered what causes homosexuality. If that is the case then surely they can find a cure for it; or even maybe, if they are able to identify early on that an embryo or feutus is gay,allow the mother to abort it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-77266032733627768712013-01-12T11:50:12.818+00:002013-01-12T11:50:12.818+00:00There is a considerable scientific literature on t...There is a considerable scientific literature on this subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation will give you a basic introduction to the field. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-in-the-w.html is a popular science mag treatment, pointing onto the latest eigenetic work, but this theory has been around for several years now and is standing up very well to scrutiny, and certainly much better than the notion that everybody is, in fact straight.<br /><br />Now lookeee here, it is only insulting to compare gay people to left handed people if you believe gay people are inferior. I hope one day you do discover that gays are simply people like you, with all the glory, fallibility, dignity and status you claim for yourself.<br /><br />I have a very opne policy on what I publish, but do not publish all comments. I don't do racism, or other hate speech. Some offered recently have been outrageously stupid — for example, someone suggesting that the root meaning of the Hebrew yd' was "buggery." I will not publish such complete twaddle, nor will I allow this space to become a spamming area for people's youtube offerings, unless they are relevant.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-40202813140257027542013-01-12T10:57:27.154+00:002013-01-12T10:57:27.154+00:00It is a total insult to compare left handed people...It is a total insult to compare left handed people to homosexuals.<br />I notice that the bishop suppresses any comments that reveal his own errors ( in biblical interpretation and on other matters).<br />I challenge him to produce evidence that homosexuality is caused by hormones in the womb. Is he a scientist? I think not.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-41242871874262391822013-01-11T15:23:39.187+00:002013-01-11T15:23:39.187+00:00Dear Bishop Alan, surely the best, as far as you a...Dear Bishop Alan, surely the best, as far as you are concerned, apologist for an evolutionary explanation of gayness,must come from the Dawkins himself. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0<br /><br />or should we call him, Dr Tommy Rot?<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis<br /><br />May I also say that you seem to have ignored my critique, above,which I am not prepared to repeat,of the "lovely" Rev.Sharon Ferguson with the wind filling her sails,holding forth, on left- handedness. This is worth watching. Enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1nD6N6DY3Q <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-22911400649913264952013-01-11T08:30:29.994+00:002013-01-11T08:30:29.994+00:00Let's try and tidy up this thread: Sodom - htt...Let's try and tidy up this thread: Sodom - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah - shows the range of interpretation. The idea this is about homosexual orgies is late medieval fantasy with some root in the Qur'an. Traditional Jewish understandings of this part of the Hebrew Scriptures are infinitely more likely to account for it. The cities of the plain became bywords for refusal to repent. Bisexuality is a concept first defined in the 1950's, I believe, and cannot provide any credible basis for interpreting this bronze age text. That's enough Sodom, thank you. It has nothing at all to do with civil partnerships and bishops. The whole language of "a gay gene" is simplistic and misleading. The best popular account I know of what actually goes on when babies are formed in the womb is Jan Roughgarden's in "Evolution's Rainbow." It's plain transmission and and incidence is very similar to left-handedness or 2D/4D ratio, and the Russians experimented with this notion (unethically) in the last century making it plain that there is a large hormonal component. It may be that the latest epigenetic explanations establish themselves further, and they are consistent with this picture. What is absolutely certain is that the acquired aspect of most forms of gayness is very low indeed. Finally, David, I find your question interesting very pertinent and applies to all attempts to enforce celibacy from the outside, including in the RC church where the effects have sometimes been noble, but often ludicrous or scandalous. Far better to trust people to make their own moral decisions. Because civil partnerships don't involve sex, I don't see why anyone shouldn't enter them if we're going to have them. The problem for me about them is that forms of "marriage lite" are less socially cohesive and morally rich than the full commitments to stability and fidelity inherent in marriage itself. It's one of the moral reasons I think all who choose to live in a married state should be recognised as doing so, not stigmatised on the basis of who they are.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-11669105090739714532013-01-10T14:31:31.962+00:002013-01-10T14:31:31.962+00:00This is the most bizarre comment thread I've f...This is the most bizarre comment thread I've followed in a long time.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-7593289082951954952013-01-10T12:59:00.440+00:002013-01-10T12:59:00.440+00:00Dear Alan, there seems to be some confusion here. ...Dear Alan, there seems to be some confusion here. Although it is agreed that there is no such thing as a gay gene( in spite of some folk like Richard Dawkins giving three possible explanations for this-enjoy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0)you seem to think that some kind of platonic,sexless, gay love, should be recognised with civil partnership. So what about all the other platonic, sexless loves involving siblings, near relatives,or even that between a man and a woman. Would you allow a Bishop to have a civil partnership with any woman,several women, or even another man's wife, just so long as sex was not involved? What are the rules of engagement in such a dualistic world?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-36746497487687491402013-01-10T11:19:53.789+00:002013-01-10T11:19:53.789+00:00And then there is another thing. We are all fallen...And then there is another thing. We are all fallen, and it may well be that there are aspects of our temperament, or chemical make-up that make some more susceptable to certain addictions than others. There some for whom alchohol presents no problem, whereas there are others who became addicted almost from the first day that they tasted it. Be that is it may, we do not therefore justify alcoholism, bad temper, lying,or any other trait that seems to be part and part of our characters. Indeed Jesus Christ came so that we might be changed and conform to his likeness and his character.<br /><br />Being left- handed is, if I may say, a complete red herring. When the Rev. Sharon Ferguson, says that for years as a child, she was made to right with her right hand,and this is comparable to making a lesbian become straight, what she fails to notice is that whether she rights with her left, or right hand, with her foot or with a pen clenched in her teeth, she writes from left to right. She conforms to the writing convention in the west. For a left handed person, writing from right to left, as with Arabic, would be a far more natural way of writing. Sharon does conform without complaining. <br /><br />So whether one has a fancy for people of the same sex,one's near relatives, pavements, oneself or sheep,this does not stop one being married in the conventional sense- to someone of the opposite sex, so as to have children and raise them in the fear of God. Both Oscar Wilde and King James had a wivee and children- as did Bishop Gene Robinson.<br /><br />Not only that; people are capable of change. Jesus Christ came to change us from what we were as it sayis in 1 Corinthians KJV:<br /><br />"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,<br /><br />10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.<br /><br />11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."<br /><br />JB Phillips says "9-11 Have you forgotten that the kingdom of God will never belong to the wicked? Don’t be under any illusion—neither the impure, the idolater or the adulterer; neither the effeminate, the pervert or the thief; neither the swindler, the drunkard, the foul-mouthed or the rapacious shall have any share in the kingdom of God. And such men, remember, were some of you! But you have cleansed yourselves from all that, you have been made whole in spirit, you have been justified before God in the name of the Lord Jesus and in his very Spirit.<br /><br />Indeed as you rightly say, there is no such thing as a homosexual. What we have are emotional disorders, that become personality disorders and which, when puberty kicks in become sexual and then indelibly imprinted.<br /><br />There is girl in Portugal, Isabela Quaresma, who from an early age was raised in a chicken coop with chickens. It is almost impossible, so I understand, to get her stop behaving like a chicken! <br /><br />We all have our funny ways, which like Paul, are like a thorn in the flesh, but we don't flaunt these disabilities, least of all celebrate them..<br /><br />Just supposing one day that Jeffrey John, no longer wants to be "gay" and finds himself being attracted to wards women- and such examples abound. If people can change from being straight to gay, why should there not be traffic going the other way. But no, the gaystapo will not allow this. But just supposing one day, Jeffrey John changes, how will his genteel, silver- haired, middle England communicants at St Albans react? Will there be rejoicing and cucumber sandwiches all round? I doubt it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-58818595000920374952013-01-09T22:50:42.522+00:002013-01-09T22:50:42.522+00:00I've just picked up your latest comment, David...I've just picked up your latest comment, David. Of course there is no gay gene, and anyone who understood genetics would not expect there to be. The most likely explanations for the phenomenon of people who are born gay seem to be to do with hormones in the womb, and are, at most epigenetic, like left handedness. The Jude passage about sex with angels is very obscure but obviously refers to Genesis 6 (Lot's guests in Genesis 19 were also described as Angels).Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-34263351564055572412013-01-09T22:42:41.777+00:002013-01-09T22:42:41.777+00:00David, I have no idea how we got into this text fr...David, I have no idea how we got into this text from discussion of a proposal that people who, by definition aren't having gay sex should be allowed to be bishops. The sin of Sodom is mentioned several times in the Bible but never in contexts that have anything to do with homosexuality. neither is there any mention of the subject in the parallel story contained in Judges 19. One problem with your interpretation, on the most basic level, is that if the men of Sodom had in fact been perceived by the men in the house to be raging homosexuals (the whole concept is anachronistic, but let's imagine it for a moment) their immediate response would not have been to offer them women instead to slake their lust. The NT context is cities refusing hospitality to disciples. Strangely enough one of the first texts to suggest this has anything to do with gayness at all is the Qur'an. To make sense of them we simply have to study these texts as they are, not import later cultural assumptions into them.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-11233399640514877832013-01-09T22:32:56.979+00:002013-01-09T22:32:56.979+00:00There is no gay gene and there are no homosexuals....There is no gay gene and there are no homosexuals. When we use the word homosexual and heterosexual we are not talking about separate entities but the relationship that exists between them. A homo relationship is complete, stable, unified and all of a piece- homogenous! All of the components, though not identical are of the same kind. My arms, legs, head and ears are all different and yet of the same kind – homogenous, unified, consistent and pure, uniform, stable , balanced , complementary, comparable, invariable of a piece, of the same kind, as in man- kind. A woman was formed from the man. She a structural component of the one flesh described in Genesis.<br /> A hetero relationship is not just different, in the same way that an arm is related differently from a foot, or a man from woman; it means strange, impure , unnatural, abnormal , conglomerate and motley. For over a hundred years we have been led to using the wrong words! My relationship with my wife is homosexual, whilst the gays’ relationships are heterosexuals.<br />The Greek word Hetero is used only once in respect to sex in the Bible and here in Jude it means strange ( flesh), but not angelic because angels do not have fleshly bodies. <br />http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1428<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-27843927279817147282013-01-09T21:21:15.848+00:002013-01-09T21:21:15.848+00:00Dear Alan, I am not aware of the diverse interpret...Dear Alan, I am not aware of the diverse interpretations of the story of Sodom apart from the one proposed by the gay lobby. What are these others? Beside which, God had told Abraham that he was going to destroy Sodom because of its exceeding wickedness , not because of Angels at or inhospitality. Plus, returning to 2 Peter, what distressed Lot was not inhospitality but “the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard). ……This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh.”<br />Sound like sex to me, not inhospitality .Further on it describes more clearly what this behaviour was:<br /> “Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, revelling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable”<br />Yet again it says, “8 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”<br />There is no mention of inhospitality here.<br />Jeremiah 23 also speaks of Sodom’s sin as sexual: adultery, i.e., any relationship outside of the one man, one woman, one flesh relationship, called marriage.<br />On the other hand how are passages relating to Sodom and Gibeah translated by all the Bibles of the world? All, apart from the “ Queen James Version”, written for the land of GayTranselvania , describe the sins of Sodom as sexual. Jude in the French Bibles says, “Sodome et Gomorrhe et les villes voisines, qui se livrèrent comme eux à la débauche et à des vices contre nature, sont données en exemple, subissant la peine d’un feu éternel. ‘’<br />I also believe it is significant that in Leviticus 18, homosexuality is closely linked to both abortion and bestiality: Verse 21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord; 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable; and 23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.”<br /> Homosexuals encourage abortion because it destroys in men and women the natural, paternal and maternal instincts and thus the categories of fatherhood and motherhood. Sex with animals makes sex an activity unrelated to any human relationship.<br /> <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774491531314291740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-85968667107174094252013-01-09T18:41:09.823+00:002013-01-09T18:41:09.823+00:00Andrew: The one who is being rude here and name-ca...Andrew: The one who is being rude here and name-calling is the bishop. He calls anyone who upholds true Christian morality a "bigot" and rushes to compare their principles to the vicious behaviour of a woman who beat her son to death for not learning the Koran. How insulting is that?<br />The best that can be said for this bishop is that his intellectual faculties are not very clear.Laughing Hyenanoreply@blogger.com