From "The Friends of Jake" blog comes this response to the Bishop's report...why exactly are theologians lecturing the wider church about science?
I won't lecture you on theology if you don't lecture me on science
From "The Friends of Jake" blog
Now that the TEC Bishops' Super Secret Theology committee has released its report(or rather, its two competing reports), I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion.
I have read through the conservative's arguments against acceptance of GLBT people and my blood pressure is skyrocketing over the same old tired flat earth arguments.
I will leave it to others to dissect their theological aspect (Tobias Haller comes to mind) but I will point out one direct quote that I find breathtakingly outrageous.
"...we are left with three fallacies that need correction: (1) that current science points to sexual orientation as basically innate; (2) that the attempt to change orientation is bound to cause harm; and (3) if homosexuality is something “given,” it cannot be considered in the category of “unnatural.” The rest of this section on scientific evidence will counter the first two points, and the section on natural law that follows will clarify what a theological notion of “unnatural” implies, and why this still applies."
Their discussion of genetics (a field I know a little something about) shows a complete failure to understand basic principles--what it means to say something is innate, and the fallacy of a single gene theory. They embarrass themselves. And rather than take your time here with lecture, I will refer you to Gay Married Californian, where tomorrow I will begin a series on Genetics.
And meanwhile, they also justify "reparative therapy" thus flying into the face of the medical profession. Their citations are to religious texts and summaries, not to primary literature.
Read the rest at "Friends of Jake" blog