91热爆

Alan Harper a challenge? Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers had nothing on this man, he danced around the issue of homosexuality like he was doing the tango over flaming coals.

Was he extremely careful hoping not to say anything that would alienate one side or the other? As far as I could tell, he didn't say anything, no nothing at all.

Thoughtful? To me he is stalling for time to see which way the political wind is blowing before he takes the plunge committing himself. Did I hear it said correctly that he's been around for forty years? Maybe all he needs is a little more time. Perhaps he should hire Gallup to conduct a poll so he can find out just which side God is on.

Re 1:

I have to agree - I understood him to say that it is not sinful to be homosexual and that if a homosexual couple lived chaste like a brother or sister he would find that acceptable. Otherwise .....

I was very disappointed with his wishy washy position and I think that is why his church is losing credibility in my eyes. I would have been more comfortable with him if he said that his 'personal view' was .... however that this is not a generally accepted position by his peers but it is the position he would offer in any discussions on the matter.

Regards,
Michael

I agree with Michael and Gay Christian. Wishy washy sums it up. The man should have the courage of his convictions. I'd respect that. Robin Eames - who knows where he stood on ANY issue, but at least he didnt SOUND like he was redefining words in the dictionary just to avoid being clear. My advice to alan harper is this - you took this job, no one made you take it, now lead from the front, not from behind. Leading from behind means waiting to see which way the wind blows then going with it. Look at the great church leaders, from Martin Luther King to Desmond Tutu. They all led from the front. Others might disagree with them (or even kill them in King's case) but you have to admire their consistency and clarity of thought and expression. Harper is a disatrous choice and Michael is right when he says this is one of the reasons why the church of ireland is in trouble.

Mark ... challenge is an understatement. Crawley's interview was like tryig to STAPPLE MERCURY to the ceiling. That guy is a serious wriggler. If I'd been crawley I'd have said, "For heaven's sake, Bishop, what are you trying to avoid SAYING here?" Even on politics he was a vacuous.

frankie #5
Alan Harper reminded me of William's interview with McIntosh. One thing I don't ever expect a cleric to say is "I don't know." They always seem to have an answer for everything, even if it is an entirely evasive answer.

I agree with the rest of you. Harper should just own up and say, It;s ok to be gay. Thats a sensible position anyway. The only people whod disagree with him are arguing tht the earth is 20 minutes old.

just listened to this harper int. I'm in two minds about him (just as he seems to be in two minds about eveything!). I'm glad he's not a fundamentalist. But did he have to be totally without any desire to influence others' views on gay relationshps? Is this just a game to these guys or do they really care about the TRUTH? The truth will set you free archbishop. Who said that? It wasnt a church of ireland bishop you can be sure of that. He's 62 and seems to think this is a retirement plan already.

just listened to this harper int. I'm in two minds about him (just as he seems to be in two minds about eveything!). I'm glad he's not a fundamentalist. But did he have to be totally without any desire to influence others' views on gay relationshps? Is this just a game to these guys or do they really care about the TRUTH? The truth will set you free archbishop. Who said that? It wasnt a church of ireland bishop you can be sure of that. He's 62 and seems to think this is a retirement plan already.

just listened to this harper int. I'm in two minds about him (just as he seems to be in two minds about eveything!). I'm glad he's not a fundamentalist. But did he have to be totally without any desire to influence others' views on gay relationshps? Is this just a game to these guys or do they really care about the TRUTH? The truth will set you free archbishop. Who said that? It wasnt a church of ireland bishop you can be sure of that. He's 62 and seems to think this is a retirement plan already.

As an openly gay Christian and member of the Church of Ireland I entirely understand the Archbishop Elect's need to tie together an already fractured church.

Aside from the NI/ROI divide within the CoI there is the rather more worrying divide between low church & even lower church, many country parishes have almost entirely been swallowed up by merging with other traditions (most notably Presbyterianism) and have almost entirely lost their Anglicanism.

The CoI was certainly fortunate in Archbishop Eames on the world stage, but within our country how much sway does Armagh actually have? I think the answer is probably "slightly less than Dublin & slightly more than Down and Dromore"

Archbishop Harper will face a tough time in the months and years ahead as indeed will the entire Anglican Communion. My prayer would be that Christians of all shades (especially Anglicans) could create an environment where the Primate DIDN'T have to dance the to tune of one particular group or t'other and instead set out his own beliefs and visions without fearing the wrath of his followers.

Agree with the comments above; wishy washy, wriggly, etc. - and I also agree that he feels a strong need to tie together his church. Unfortunately in my experience that is a task fraught with complication, since many church members possess the ability to think for themselves!

So perhaps the real question is: Why are we asking a single man to come up with a moral answer to a question as though he would be answering on behalf of thousands of church members he doesn't know? What moral authority does he possess that would make his answer more pertinent than that of the average church member?

Of course we have always regarded church leaders in this way: they get up on Sundays and tell the church what to believe. But perhaps in the year 2006 that isn't a very good, or a very realistic, way of 'doing church.' I can't remember the last time I actually benefited from a sermon. I'm not sure that the idea of 'clergy' and 'laity' is a good, or a valid, one.

In reality, it is simply unfair to expect Alan Harper to be able to tie together a church of people with thousands of different worldviews on the subject of homosexuality; he struggled because it's impossible to do so, and it is not a worthwhile cause to try and formulate a church credo which attempts to get everyone in a church to believe the same thing.

What would be wrong with a church in which people have diverse opinions on the issues and don't have to listen each week to sermons which tell them how wrong they are; yet all come together in one common belief in God? Church where there is no 'clergy' and the central aim of church is not to be taught but rather to learn?

I might actually go to THAT church.

John Wright #12

"What would be wrong with a church in which people have diverse opinions on the issues and don't have to listen each week to sermons which tell them how wrong they are"

Simple, it wouldn't be a church. People go to church to be told what to think and how to act so that they can get into heaven. It's easier NOT to think for yourself. It's also easier to invent what you want to believe than it is to study the real world and understand it by observing the facts, give fair consideration to logical arguments, and to conclude what you have to think that's consistant with them. Religion is counting on mental laziness and fear of the unknown of death. That includes Andy McIntosh and Wilder Smith.

Michael N. Hull, people who said the earth was round and went around the sun were ignored, ostracized, and shunned. That didn't make the earth any flatter. The light of day may be a cold and unfriendly place but it is far preferable to staying in the dark and being fed bull excerement. Some of us can't pretend it's steak forever.

Drew, thanks for your comments. I'm just glad there ARE some openly gay people in the church of ireland and i'd be interested to know if any chuch leaders have actually talked to you about your experience. They say its important to talk and listen to gay people but when do they do that?

Mark- I agree, largely. There are some newer forms of church (see "" for an example) which seek to remedy the dogmatic and denominational approach of traditional Christianity (a href="https://www.ikon.org.uk">Ikon in Belfast, for example). These groups intentionally regard the asking of questions as more important than giving answers.

Unfortunately, they seem to suffer from another malady entirely: an indulgence in postmodernism. The only thing as bad as religious traditionalism is the wooly thinking, denial of reason, false profundity, 'contemplation', bad electronic music and the potent mixture of leftist political ideology and theology found in the "alt" churches.

I guess I'm a spiritual nomad. No room at the inn.

Mark writes:

鈥淢ichael N. Hull, people who said the earth was round and went around the sun were ignored, ostracized, and shunned. That didn't make the earth any flatter. The light of day may be a cold and unfriendly place but it is far preferable to staying in the dark and being fed bull excerement. Some of us can't pretend it's steak forever.鈥�

Mark:

You must know J. Murray Gibson 鈥� he is now the associate laboratory director of Argonne National Laboratory, and is responsible for the Advanced Photon Source.

Here are a few comments from a letter he wrote in February 2003 to Physics Today.

I think it is a pretty good 鈥榮ermon鈥� for you.

Regards,
Michael

Ask a scientist who is not a physicist and you might hear that we physicists are an arrogant bunch. And to a layperson, scientists in general often seem arrogant. No, we shrug, we're not really arrogant, we are just very objective and thus usually right! We are certainly a group with admirable strength in our convictions. Could there be a problem with well-tempered arrogance?

I have worked in a number of high-quality research institutions and have learned that arrogance is, for good reason, a prized commodity. During my early career at Bell Labs, a senior executive asserted that arrogance was something to be proud of, something to be nurtured. And since Bell Labs has had such phenomenal historic success, we should not dismiss his point lightly. Now, 20 years later, I am a senior manager at a large research laboratory, and I understand better what he was trying to get at. But do we understand the downside of arrogance? I have come to believe that while arrogance is a tool that can be powerfully used when cutting through the misconceptions that surround the natural world, it is a double-edged sword. I hope that I may convince you that we should keep this weapon in its scabbard much of the time.

Many physicists believe that physics is the pinnacle of science, since it can tackle the completely unknown. In the experimentalist's lab or on the theorist's scribbling pad, unhesitating questioning of assumptions, dismissal of previous models or confidence in a naive approach have repeatedly proven successful. I've observed that newcomers to a field have often been able to see a solution that experienced scientists were unable to see. I firmly believe in the value of arrogance and controlled ignorance in the pursuit of science, and have often counseled my students on this. However, from other experiences, I believe that ignorance and arrogance can be dangerous weapons, and we must take care where we are pointing them.
The trap with arrogance is that you don't leave home without it. We must distinguish the profession of physics from physics itself.

Unfortunately, the success of arrogance in the lab breeds in many physicists an attitude that one can construct one's own independent and completely objective model of all human behavior and act it out. There is often miscommunication when an "objective" scientist attempts to argue with, for example, an "axiomatic humanist". The scientific method has only limited value in many important fields of human thought.

The real danger, I believe, comes if we are deceived that our objectivity about the natural world applies to our views on society and our workplace.

Of course, physicists are not the only scientists or engineers who are guilty of this arrogance. And arrogance extends to many professions, including medicine and finance. Yet, in some respects, arrogance amongst scientists is particularly insidious because it is so easily justified, and thus so difficult to expel.

Let me examine the negative implications of arrogance in the physics profession. The intrinsic relationship of "me teacher, you student" is in itself arrogant. It fails to emphasize that a part of scientific progress occurs by questioning authority and conventional wisdom. I believe that the burgeoning of pseudoscience can be partly attributed to the public's hunger for things scientific and to inadequate exposure to the real stuff. Nonscientists have sometimes criticized the arrogance of scientists as a means of discrediting scientific ideas such as evolution. So arrogance can be an Achilles heel, preventing us from winning the arguments we need to win.

Since the recent withdrawal by Bell Labs scientists of highly cited papers about charge transport in organic field-effect devices, a lot of attention has been paid to ethical issues in our profession. That case received great attention because of the potential importance of the results. However, I believe that there are many more cases involving ethics abuse that do not see the light of day. I think our approach to ethics has been a symptom of our arrogance as physicists--we easily forget that we are all too human.

As a result, honest physicists are perhaps relatively gullible victims of those who do not feel restricted by ethics. Although the scientific method finds the right path in the end, it is healthier when we openly recognize that ethical weakness is as common in physicists as in others.

To solve these problems, we must clearly separate our personal limitations from our physics, and be more aware of our lack of objectivity. Admission of limitations is the first step to progress (just like repenting is the key to forgiveness in Christians).

We are human.

It is important for us to teach the danger of arrogance to our students and avoid the traps it provides. My thesis, that physicists suffer from an abundance of misused arrogance, is presented in the hope that in the future we physicists can separate our profession from our science. Let us hope we can keep our razor-sharp "no axioms allowed" intellects at their most productive level while becoming humbler in our interactions among ourselves and with the public. Although we may be privileged to appreciate and discover the secrets of nature, we have no right to claim any ownership over them or to exclude others from decisions about what to do with our knowledge.

I have taken an extreme perspective by asserting that arrogance is a two-edged weapon. In the lab, where we physicists are thrilled as we learn about nature, arrogance can be a very powerful, positive force. But in the workplace and society at large, I believe arrogance can be blamed for some of our professional woes, even though such behavior is not usually intended to be malicious. I am not proposing a new "soft and cuddly" approach, but I think we should appreciate and mitigate the downsides of arrogant behavior.

Michael N. Hull #16

It's been a while since I visited Argonne National Laboratory or talked with its director Murray Gibson. In fact it's been um...now let me think,....um....NEVER! From what you say, perhaps it should be renamed Arrogant National Laboratory. Is there a point somewhere in all of your rambling? It was all I could do to wade through it. I thought we had an agreement. Hmmm, guess that's over and done with. I don't expect any answers to any of the questions I posed to you in my recent long posting which you so completely dismissed.

I've had a little experience being around physicists. I roomed with a physics major in college for two years and he went on to become a well respected PHD in Physics working for a major national laboratory (negotiating nuclear disarmament, heaven help us.) I've worked for two companies which were major sponoffs of Bell Telephone Laboratories and have had many friends who worked at Bell Labs (I live in that area.) And I was once a member of the American Institute of Physics myself although as I said in another posting, I am not a physicist. BTW, are you now claiming to be a physicist? In the first posting of yours I read as I recall, you claimed to be a physics honor student and hold an advanced degree in electro-chemistry. Later as I recall you denied your physics background.

It's been my experience that most physicists are not arrogant. Like most scientists, they usually take the position that their theories are the best explanations they have consistant with their observed facts (data) and that's what they'll use until better ones come along. And those that are arrogant have little justification for that arrogance because when you get right down to it, they really don't know much of anything. For instance, they can't tell you what gravity is. They don't know if electromagnet energy consists of waves or a particles. They can't even tell you why atomic nucleii stay together. In fact they can't account for about 96% of all of the matter in the universe which they suspect is all around them. They come up with one theory after another, each one more convoluted and more implausible than the last, their latest pet being string theory. Why is it implausible? Because considering how vast the universe is, and considering that they believe (with good justification) it is the same everywhere, it is most likely a simple structure which just seems to have eluded them so far. They've been proven wrong in their basic understanding time and time again, sometimes being made to look like complete fools such as by Einstein. Remember him? When he came out with his theories, few of them even understood it, most of them dismissed it when they did, and now it has completely replaced what came before, Newton. Most physicists seemed enthusiastic to me, but again, few I've met are actually arrogant being aware just how little it is they actually understand. Now theologians are another matter entirely. They have all the answers. Just ask the Reverend Andy McIntosh or the Reverend Wilder Smith.

I think Peter Tatchell's website is quite interesting on this subject;-

...and Alfred Kinsey;

PB

ie those two hyperlinks in post 18 demonstrate there are very contrasting views on this in comparison to those presented by Will.

And I am not talking about voices from any section of the church either...

PB

PB:

It's a waste of time saying this, because you've been told this already so many times on this site, but here goes:

KINSEY - is massively out of date. No one pays much attention to it today. It was important 50 years ago but has been overtaken by many, many other studies. Can we not discuss Kinsey anymore?

TATCHELL - is not a scientist, nor is he a specialist in any of the relevant areas (physiology, psychology, genetics, etc). He's an important gay rights campaigner, but can we stop talking about him as though he was an expert witness in the debate about the genetics of homosexuality.

David

Kinsey is still THE landmark work in this area. You cant just pretend his research never happened.

And you cant magic Tacthell away in a puff of smoke either.

He also knows so many gay men that turned straight that he just cant believe the research papers being churned out....

I think you need to wave your magic wand a bit harder David, it isnt working just yet.

PB

It came as no surprise to me because I'd read it years ago about humans but it has now been seen also in sheep that male homosexuality appears to be the result of smaller than normal regions of the hypothalmus area in the pituitary gland which is more similar to the size of this area in females. There is now talk of a medical treatment for male homosexuality but so far of course, it is proposed to be stritly voluntary.

It is hardly surprising to me that the people who wrote in the bible that homosexuality is a sin were ignorant of the biological facts of it since they were ignorant of virtually everything else too. What exactly did they actually know about anything?

"Drew, thanks for your comments. I'm just glad there ARE some openly gay people in the church of ireland and i'd be interested to know if any chuch leaders have actually talked to you about your experience. They say its important to talk and listen to gay people but when do they do that?"

I've had several chats with my Rector on the subject, the most constructive discussions I've had on the sublect was actually with a delegation from the Presbyterian General Assembly (as a former Presbyterian myself) who have recently begun a series of consultation meetings to discuss Presbyterian attitudes to homosexuality.

It is simply not proven that homosexual orientation is determined at birth. No genetic evidence is forthcoming in this respect. Though, there is much evidence to suggest that a soft and luxurious social environment promotes homosexual tendencies. Besides, if a 'gay gene' could be identified, the same might be true for adultery, murder and stealing. Such activities might conceivably be decriminalized on such grounds, to the utter ruin of civilized society as we have known it!

Man inherited the 鈥漇IN GENE鈥� from Adam and is conceived in sin that is certain, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

How inconvenient for biblical moralists that medical science has discovered the biochemical underpinnings of male homosexuality. Will this become another issue to enter the losing war Christianity is waging against science alongside the second law of thermodynamics being violated by evolution and the 6000 year old flat earth around which the sun, stars and planets revolve? Damn that Galileo, he started the whole bad business. Of course you could become a metaphorist and invent new words and meanings to twist the bible into credibility and save the Christian illusion. Or.......NO! perish the thought.

He's a TECHNOCRAT, and a really inarticulate one at that.

Just to be facetious, does anyone else think that the picture of Alan Harper on this blog makes him look like a Thunderbirds puppet!?

Simon- LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay, that was funny.

Mark, David from Oxford

can you stand up that assertion in post 25? Even uk leading Gay Rights group Outrage does not believe people are born gay.

and... David

I would stop raising these points if Will would acknowledge it is not a black and white discussion... you make grossly inaccurate statements which you do not back up... until you do...This extract from wikipedia..I am not saying I agree with everything in it, but it is supposed to be neutral and it certainly leaves you with some questions to answer about the "immutability" of sexuality.

*Causes and malleability of sexual orientation...

Considerable debate continues over what biological and/or psychological variables produce sexual orientation in humans, such as genes and the exposure of certain levels of hormones to fetuses. A dialog remains in progress on whether that orientation is discretionary, largely derived from the theologies of Christianity and Islam. Freud and many others, particularly in psychoanalytic traditions, speculate that formative childhood experiences (a.k.a.. nurture) help produced sexual orientation.

Most specialists follow the general conclusion of Alfred Kinsey regarding the sexual continuum, according to which a minority of humans are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and that the majority are bisexual, that is, that the norm is to experience a mixture homoerotic and heteroerotic feelings, each kind to a different degree. Interestingly, Kinsey himself鈥攁long with current "queer" activist groups鈥攆ocus on the historicity and personal fluidity of sexual orientation. Kinsey's studies consistently showed sexual orientation as something that evolves in many directions over a person's lifetime.
ENDS

pb #29;
Google homosexuality > hypothalamus. I got 56,300 hits
for homosexuality > pituitary I got 40,000
for homosexuality > hormone I get 357,000

Do you own homework pb. Somewhere in there, you might find convincing evidence. If you don't find it there, you probably won't believe it anywhere.

Come back when you've finished them all in 348,374,273 years and tell me about it. Then we can discuss it intelligently.

Mark

of course, the number of hits on any subject in a google search proves the science in each hit without ever having had to read them.

A case study in pre-judging (prejudicing) the facts.

PB

Mark

post 29, from Wikipedia:

"Most specialists follow the general conclusions of Alfred Kinsey....Kinsey's studies consistently showed sexual orientation as something that evolves in many directions over a person's lifetime..."

Note, Enc Britannica concurs with the above regarding Kinsey's standing and fluidity of sexuality ...

PB

A very good start pb, only 453,298 more references for you to read through. Come back when you're finished with them and we'll discuss it further. You'll know a lot more by then, I'm sure.

If you are gay and the Church are feeble minded enought o shun you, why not set your own church up?

Everybody else does it, you could change your name from the Peoples Front of Judea to the Judean People's Front - Oh no, thats him over there. All together now... "Splitter!!!" You get the drfit I'm sure.

Whats the difference - organised religion is a load of toffee anyway..

Make up your own rules and be gay to your heart's content - I would.