tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post3211371078972979963..comments2023-11-10T09:15:40.084-08:00Comments on The Friends of Jake: I won't lecture you on theology if you don't lecture me on scienceDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10124314924693077453noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-67515623285179130442010-03-26T15:38:52.954-07:002010-03-26T15:38:52.954-07:00Brilliant, IT.
And now I have to go look up &quo...Brilliant, IT. <br /><br />And now I have to go look up "narratology"....<br /><br />Pax,<br />DoxyWormwood's Doxyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10882756844690851674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-81899428508387664132010-03-26T07:15:25.745-07:002010-03-26T07:15:25.745-07:00Thanks IT for exposing some of the truly weak &quo...Thanks IT for exposing some of the truly weak "argumentation" in the essay. The circular reasoning and re-assertion-as-argument is so tiresome. The paragraph you cite above:<br /><br /><i>[T]he inherent procreative purpose of sexual relationships must be respected and embodied in Christian marriage. This does not require the unnecessarily stringent requirement of respect for procreation in every sexual act (as implied in Humanae Vitae), nor does it imply that a marriage foreseen to be childless (e.g. when the parties to the marriage are beyond normal child-rearing age); but it does, at the very least, imply a marital partnership of a man and a woman. </i> <br /><br />is a perfect example that doesn't seem to be aware of how little sense it makes.<br /><br />I studied Narratology as an undergraduate, and learned how helpful it is in unpacking arguments to reduce them to symbolic statements, then compare the symbols to see the structure. In this case such algebra should not be necessary, as the first and last clauses of the paragraph are essentially the same: "inherent" is assumed at the outset, and so it must "at the very least imply" at the end. QED. Not!!!<br /><br />As to addressing some of the other arguments, particularly complementarity (on which they rely so much), see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Holy-Tobias-Stanislas-Haller/dp/1596271108" rel="nofollow"><i>Reasonable and Holy</i></a> -- already available. The most serious problem is the failure to see how the complementarity argument undercuts orthodoxy -- which by the admission of the opening (and presumably agreed upon) essay should indicate that argument cannot be employed!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-41875380411417493422010-03-25T23:33:51.494-07:002010-03-25T23:33:51.494-07:00Dearest IT, this morning I found you referred to o...Dearest IT, this morning I found you referred to on HOB/D, and all I can say is that you ROCK!!!<br />It's good to have you around ;=) and as a very dear friend!Göran Koch-Swahnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925549945659350649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-9727758836277429022010-03-25T23:29:12.314-07:002010-03-25T23:29:12.314-07:00Great stuff, IT! Forge ahead!Great stuff, IT! Forge ahead!Mary Claranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-87842808179858394602010-03-25T17:03:17.702-07:002010-03-25T17:03:17.702-07:00Thank you, IT!
When I read comments like this, I ...Thank you, IT!<br /><br />When I read comments like this, I stop reading. If they can't deal with reality in regard to the science, what hope is there that I can rely on their theology? I think they undercut their argument by including drivel like this.<br /><br />By the way, the neurologist in question has added an additional contribution. Well worth reading.<br /><br />IT, I am looking forward to your series on genetics.<br /><br />Paul MPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410143259690873128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-29492936102065382542010-03-25T16:17:17.321-07:002010-03-25T16:17:17.321-07:00Thank you, IT!
LeonardoThank you, IT!<br /><br />LeonardoLeonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667415590825321701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-23418630687041752702010-03-25T15:33:09.398-07:002010-03-25T15:33:09.398-07:00There's a long comment on Episcopal Cafe by a ...There's a long comment on Episcopal Cafe by a neurologist that's well worth looking at, which you can see <a href="http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/theology/you_comments_requested_on_the.html#comment-22117" rel="nofollow">here</a>. He finds the "science" of the "conservatives" to be "so simplistic as to be laughable."<br /><br />He also comments that: "as the 'cause' of heterosexual orientation is also not conclusively understood, perhaps all arguments about sexual morality as involving the intent of a divine creator should be put off until we have conclusive proof. We might consider, perhaps, a universal celibacy to be the appropriate response until all the data are in. In that case, perhaps all of the Prayerbook Rites for opposite sex marriage should be placed in suspension until this issue can be settled."dr.primrosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-49458875902904830052010-03-25T13:57:27.759-07:002010-03-25T13:57:27.759-07:00I should add that I am qualified to discuss this a...I should add that I am qualified to discuss this as I am a geneticist by profession (although my research area is not sexual orientation). Still I am quite confident that my knowledge of THIS subject exceeds that of all four theologians put together.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-31268454464394844862010-03-25T12:47:24.759-07:002010-03-25T12:47:24.759-07:00(I hit "publish" instead of "previe...(I hit "publish" instead of "preview")<br /> <br />There is an intersection between the two disciplines, but neither is well served by cherry picking and dependance upon arguments from ignorance. The Report is full of bad theology propped up bad really bad science, at least according to the Biologist I showed it to this AM and you. then again, it's not a shock to me that they are linked, since both Bad Science and Bad theology require a similar mindset.<br /><br />I would say that one can discuss "natural" in a way that doesn't touch upon the hard sciences. But even on that account they trot out really tired old metaphysics that I'm not sure they buy into, but it "works" for them so they quote it.Frair Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03855036304956508405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-46115444921820401742010-03-25T12:38:47.995-07:002010-03-25T12:38:47.995-07:00You have given one of the chief reasons why some t...You have given one of the chief reasons why some theologians, like Karl barth, rejected "Natural theology" as a tertiary and questionable enterprise. Since, as I understand it, almost all science is provisional it's not a great thing to try and hang a theological hat on.Frair Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03855036304956508405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-16887966456419347012010-03-25T12:33:03.437-07:002010-03-25T12:33:03.437-07:00Pea Ess
I read the following on some Episcopal bl...Pea Ess<br /><br />I read the following on some Episcopal blog somewhere, sorry about not remembering the source, but the author said that at least now, the conservatives can never, ever again say we must "do the theology."The Werewolf Prophethttp://www.streetprophets.com/user/The%20Werewolf%20Prophet/diarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-42933082108742272922010-03-25T12:28:04.993-07:002010-03-25T12:28:04.993-07:00Folks, every bit of their ignorant blather about &...Folks, every bit of their ignorant blather about "science" can be dismissed by referring to footnote 41 at the bottom of page 26 (Emphasis added) : "The main studies have been by <b><i>Nicolosi et al. (2000), Spitzer (2003)</i></b>, and Jones and Yarhouse (2007) and are reviewed by Glynn Harrison, “Unwanted Same-sex Attractions: Can Pastoral and Counseling interventions Help People to Change?” in Groves (ed.), The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, 293-332."<br /><br />Nicolosi is the founder of NARTH & a pseudoscientific fraud, while Spitzer has publicly rebuked conservatives for misrepresenting his work.<br /><br />IT, you wrote that they are " ... standing on the beach holding their hands up to stop the tide." I propose that they're drowning in the seas of change, clutching at straws like Nicolosi.The Werewolf Prophethttp://www.streetprophets.com/user/The%20Werewolf%20Prophet/diarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-31999343736430613192010-03-25T12:25:45.082-07:002010-03-25T12:25:45.082-07:00Brilliant. Brava. Alleluia. Amen. (And putting my ...Brilliant. Brava. Alleluia. Amen. (And putting my keyboard where my superlatives are, I just "Facebooked" and "Tweeted" the link to this post ...)SUSAN RUSSELLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01795717638621668638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8238382886103256219.post-84473015271261169842010-03-25T09:49:48.849-07:002010-03-25T09:49:48.849-07:00Well said, IT! It's an absurd argument. Thei...Well said, IT! It's an absurd argument. Their views on human development are embarrassingly naive and dangerous given their public position of the "moral high ground". These people should be required to take some biology and psychology courses (and maybe even some courses in advanced Bible studies...).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05346224469658951999noreply@blogger.com