Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
We had a really interesting, and moving, thread about "intersex" some time back. Which I kick myself for not saving whenever this comes back; partly because I am completely unable to re-express some of the really important views and comments which others produced on that thread.

I think the evidence for testosterone priming of brain in utero is not fabulous.... something clearly does go on in terms of brain development etc., but I think it's more complex.

But there is not one factor, and a default state.

There are three key biological factors; the Y chromosome, testosterone, and Mullerian Inhibiting Factor (I am probably using an out of date term, or mangling what was an out of date term.... Ken or someone else may be along to correct me). It is true that if testosterone is lacking, or the receptors lacking, the appearance is quite female at birth. And similarly, that if there is extra testosterone despite XX, the appearance can be more male.

However, these things are not absolutes (as you indicate above) and quite complicated situations can arise.....

But either way, I don't think the Genesis story really contradicts that. I must admit to not being entirely sure what the rib buisiness really means..... but I certainly don't think it was a comment on sex steroid differentiation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Slight tangent here, but within the overall remit of this thread. I've just watched QI on BBC2, a light hearted quiz show.

Stephen Fry asked: Which sect did Nero blame for the burning of Rome?

Alan Davies: Was it the gays? (much laughter)

Fry: Funny you should say that; this group is often regarded as the natural enemy of gays.

The answer of course was the Christians. Now I know it's only a silly quiz, but I find it rather sad that Christianity can be regarded as the "enemy" of homosexuals even in jest.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Slight tangent here, but within the overall remit of this thread. I've just watched QI on BBC2, a light hearted quiz show.

Stephen Fry asked: Which sect did Nero blame for the burning of Rome?

Alan Davies: Was it the gays? (much laughter)

Fry: Funny you should say that; this group is often regarded as the natural enemy of gays.

The answer of course was the Christians. Now I know it's only a silly quiz, but I find it rather sad that Christianity can be regarded as the "enemy" of homosexuals even in jest.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I hope ++Caiaphas Cantuar: was watching.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I hope ++Caiaphas Cantuar: was watching.

---

And I rather hope you get off your snooty high dead horse about Rowan Williams.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I hope ++Caiaphas Cantuar: was watching.

---

And I rather hope you get off your snooty high dead horse about Rowan Williams.

---

quote:

---

The Lost Leader
Robert Browning (1812–89)

JUST for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a ribbon to stick in his coat—
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,
Lost all the others she lets us devote;
They, with the gold to give, dol’d him out silver,
So much was theirs who so little allow’d;
How all our copper had gone for his service!
Rags—were they purple, his heart had been proud!
We that had lov’d him so, follow’d him, honour’d him,
Liv’d in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learn’d his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die!
Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,
Burns, Shelley, were with us,—they watch from their graves!
He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,
He alone sinks to the rear and the slaves!

We shall march prospering,—not thro’ his presence;
Songs may inspirit us,—not from his lyre;
Deeds will be done,—while he boasts his quiescence,
Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire.
Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,
One task more declin’d, one more foot-path untrod,
One more devil’s-triumph and sorrow for angels,
One wrong more to man, one more insult to God!
Life’s night begins: let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation, and pain,
Forced praise on our part—the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!
Best fight on well, for we taught him—strike gallantly,
Menace our heart ere we master his own;
Then let him receive the new knowledge and wait us,
Pardon’d in heaven, the first by the throne!

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Caiaphas was out to get our Lord from the beginning which hardly characterises +Rowan's attitude to Jeffrey John. I think he should have told the bigots to go and pleasure themselves with a syphilitic goat rather than caving in (see my comments above) but if anyone in the Church of England should be compared to Caiaphas it is the whited sephulcres who signed that bloody letter. Save your ire for those who really deserve it.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The action you describe sounds petty and vindictive to me. Have I ever done petty and vindictive things - I'm afraid the answer is yes once again. But I've never boasted about them in public.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I think ++Rowan is a disgrace to his office, and if he had any conscience or integrity he would have resigned before now.

Caiaphas said, if you recall, "It is expedient that one man should die for the people."

So did ++Rowan, and that man was Jeffrey John.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill H:
Ummm ... dinghy sailor, I think the presence of a 59-page thread ought to indicate that there is more than one 'Christian response' to skippy01's post.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
There's a difference between, "a Christian response" and "a response some Christians make".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I think a 59 page thread tells me that there is only one "Christian response" but we are having problems deciding what that should actually be.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Re: Homophobia, people getting beaten up etc - These things are disgusting and wrong, go against the teachings of Jesus and I would like to distance myself utterly from them. Note that 'homophobia' does not mean 'thinking being gay is wrong' but actually disliking gay people more, and, well, hating them, discriminating agains them, beating them up and stuff.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Teufelchen: Yep. Let me add that I agree with what Callan's said. I'm happy to disagree with people and still get on with them. We see through a glass darkly. However, the Christian response is God's response. If he allows something, those who don't are wrong, and if he doesn't, then those who do are wrong. It's called objective truth.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Really? I disagree profoundly with Leprechaun (for example) on this issue but I would hesitate to characterise his response as unChristian. I find it somewhat disconcerting that so many Christians want to unchurch one another over this issue. It seems that we can disagree about all kinds of moral and theological issues and still cope with living with one another. Homosexuality appears to be the exception. Perhaps we ought to spend the next 59 pages attempting to work out why.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
What I cannot support is the decision-making process being subverted by placing facts on the ground,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Now if one opposes the ordination of women, one can with a clear conscience lament this as yet another example of the subversion of the truth by people "placing facts on the ground"; if one supports it, one can be thankful to those who acted prophetically and, like most prophets, acted outside the accepted rules to proclaim God's truth and bring us closer to the Kingdom.

John

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
DOD, I do mean objective truth, not divine command. You see, as a Christian, I seek to follow what God says. Finding out what He says is where the objective truth comes in.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But 'thinking gays are wrong' is what LEADS TO homophobic acts of violence - sort of hate the sin so you hate the sinner as well. (or, more deeply, hate that segment of one's own mixed-up, split off sexuality by transferrng on to an 'other' and then beating the shit out of them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Okay, here's a stab at part of that question. While I disagree with you as profoundly as you do with Leprechaun I don't wish to 'unchurch' you. Your viewpoint on this particular matter is profoundly un-Christian, in my opinion, however, I daresay some of my opinions are as well. I can imagine circumstances when it would be difficult for me to accept a priest's ministry, if for example, they were engaged repeatedly, unrepentantly and publicly in something sinful, or they were teaching something contrary to what it is evident the Church has always held to be true. That is not because the ministry of that priest is made invalid, but because I cannot in all conscience support that ministry.

---

quote:

---

I can however live in a comprehensive Church where there are a variety of viewpoints and a decision-making process open to all the orders and the laity, as well. What I cannot support is the decision-making process being subverted by placing facts on the ground, or making local or diocesan decisions in defiance of agreed teaching. I cannot support it from either the conservative or liberal standpoints. I would equally, for example, have a problem with the Diocese of Sydney if it went ahead with lay celebration, as I do with ECUSA and the diocese of New Hampshire. I cannot support, the irregular ordinations in Southwark, despite having some sympathy for them. However, I would be happy to support 'civil disobedience' in a diocese where the Bishop had clearly broken unity with the Church, by rejecting one or other aspect of its teaching. The scale of the civil disobedience would depend on the gravity of the situation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Just out of interest, to take a purely random example, would your attitude be to a clergyman who in the one sermon he has ever preached on the subject stated the current Church's teaching whilst making it clear that, in conscience, he dissented from said teaching?

---

quote:

---

I can sympathise with this up to a point. I think the problem is that I cannot solemnly undertake not to change the facts on the ground because I am one of them. There has been a small but definite shift in opinion in my church since I have been there. I don't claim the credit for this, indeed some of the reasons are obscure to me, but it seems reasonable to assume that I have been part of the process. Being relatively open about my views has, perhaps, emboldened others to speak more freely. Someone has joined the congregation after I conducted the funeral of his partner. Nothing great in the scheme of things - I don't propose to organise a mass gay wedding at Old Trafford, a la Reverend Moon, to be conducted by Gene Robinson - but a small but tangible change nonetheless. Dripping water wears away a stone, and all that. And the thing is, none of this was planned, I didn't turn up defiantly announcing that I was the only liberal in the village. Multiply this sort of effect across parishes and across time and, well, you get the picture. In time, I suspect that this sort of thing is more influential in effecting long term change than a controversial sermon here or a gay bishop there.

---

We can both be glad that I'm not one of your parishioners.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But 'thinking gays are wrong' is what LEADS TO homophobic acts of violence - sort of hate the sin so you hate the sinner as well. (or, more deeply, hate that segment of one's own mixed-up, split off sexuality by transferrng on to an 'other' and then beating the shit out of them.

---

The two often go together.... but are you really saying anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is on the way to being, or already homophobic?

Can one not think that alcoholism is wrong without hating alcoholics? Or that gambling is wrong without hating gamblers?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

On a different note, I gather there has been a meeting of the homosexual Christians of Nigeria sometime in the last couple of weeks. This is not my news, but second hand (and from a biased source) but I gather that at least one bishop when told about the meeting reacted in such a way it was clear he was unaware that there were gay Christian Nigerians.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
.....A study at the University of Georgia showed that most men, who the researchers defined as homophobic, experienced significant sexual arousal when watching a homosexual movie involving sex between two men.

---