First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

[larkin31]

Should a pedaphile learn to trust his “pleasure centers” as he molests a young person?

Duh. Why are you asking this? No one has said that pleasure is ALWAYS right. You guys are a lot of fun with some of this…

Pleasure is not an end in itself. When it is used this way humans become objects rather than subjects. Sexual pleasure (certainly a gift from God) when separated from its original purpose, that being a complete mutual self-giving of one to the other, resulting in life, becomes disordered and deformed and, yes, it can become evil or sinful as in the case above. We don’t have to over-analyze the situation each time we get “in the mood”, but we must approach our spouse as a person and not an object of our pleasure. It is then that we can “become one flesh”. Otherwise we might as well be a dog humping someone’s leg.

There are many shades between total sacred union and mindless humping. The shades where most of humanity lives.

 

[SteveVH]

Duh. Why are you asking this? No one has said that pleasure is ALWAYS right. You guys are a lot of fun with some of this…

There are many shades between total sacred union and mindless humping. The shades where most of humanity lives.

It was you who said:

But to claim or suggest that pleasure itself is evil or sinful is wrong. We have pleasure centers for a reason, and if you think that God gave us them, we learn to trust them. They keep us alive, too.

Just responding to your words. Sorry to have upset you. I do actually agree with your statement that most of humanity lives somewhere between total sacred union and mindless humping, including me. That doesn’t mean we ignore the truth or tolerate pleasure for pleasure’s sake as in the case of a disordered sexual appetite.

Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize.

 

[larkin31]

It was you who said:

Just responding to your words. Sorry to have upset you. I do actually agree with your statement that most of humanity lives somewhere between total sacred union and mindless humping, including me. That doesn’t mean we ignore the truth or tolerate pleasure for pleasure’s sake as in the case of a disordered sexual appetite.

Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize.

No apology necessary.

I just thought it was clear that pedophilia is not defended by “Well, it feels good for me.” No one argues that ANYTHING can be done for pleasure. My point simply was to defend pleasure. “Pleasure” is not what is evil or sinful. It is what humans DO for pleasure that may be wrong. Don’t blame pleasure, however. Pleasure is a vital and necessary ingredient to marriage and most of life.

 

[SteveVH]

No apology necessary.

I just thought it was clear that pedophilia is not defended by “Well, it feels good for me.” No one argues that ANYTHING can be done for pleasure. My point simply was to defend pleasure. “Pleasure” is not what is evil or sinful. It is what humans DO for pleasure that may be wrong. Don’t blame pleasure, however. Pleasure is a vital and necessary ingredient to marriage and most of life.

Agreed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure where we disagree? I’m saying the same thing as you basically. I should not have to feel guilty for seeking pleasure in intimacy and not every marital encounter is a deep, boundless, spiritual experience mentally for a husband in wife. I’m agreeing with you. Pleasure-seeking to a certain degree is normal IMO in sexuality. Husbands and wives having needs that need to be met is normal Does it get down to urges and being “in the mood” and not just some religious euphoria in which both partners feel they’re cooperating in a timeless universal eternal act of glory? Absolutely. Sex does not have to be an over-thought intimacy bonding soulmate session everytime. I think we agree? I’m not sure where we disagree?

I merely pointed out Augustine to show that there are extremes. Augustine was indeed a recovering sex maniac. He had lived a debauched, irresponsible, selfish sexual lifestyle. After becoming Christian he did have a real overreaction to sexuality not just because he felt guilty about his former life but because he realized the DANGEROUS potential sexuality holds…and it does! Sex can yield promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, pedaphilia, pornography, you name it. If not kept in check and properly understood, sex can be a pandora’s box of vile sins. Augustine had opened that box. It scared him the potential. He had a cynical attitude about it as a result.

Hating the sexual side of humanity is the position of an extremist or a neurotic. Augustine was a rebounding profligate, and became an extremist the other way.

I agree with everything else you write here, and agree that a balance of love and pleasure and bonding and sharing is the ideal. But to claim or suggest that pleasure itself is evil or sinful is wrong. We have pleasure centers for a reason, and if you think that God gave us them, we learn to trust them. They keep us alive, too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, Steve. The “humping” reference was a bit over the top for CAF though LOL!

Should a pedaphile learn to trust his “pleasure centers” as he molests a young person?

Pleasure is not an end in itself. When it is used this way humans become objects rather than subjects. Sexual pleasure (certainly a gift from God) when separated from its original purpose, that being a complete mutual self-giving of one to the other, resulting in life, becomes disordered and deformed and, yes, it can become evil or sinful as in the case above. We don’t have to over-analyze the situation each time we get “in the mood”, but we must approach our spouse as a person and not an object of our pleasure. It is then that we can “become one flesh”. Otherwise we might as well be a dog humping someone’s leg.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Rowan Williams was in no way involved in this consecration–he warned us not to do it.

Edwin

And that I suppose is the whole problem with the system. I thought Rowan Williams is some sort of Prime Bishop who has a real say in what goes on in the Anglican Communion.

I seem to remember him commenting when asked why they allowed gay priests and bishops, he said that the communion voted for that in 1930. Interesting how he correlates that with the permission of contraception.

 

[Bluegoat]

I seem to remember him commenting when asked why they allowed gay priests and bishops, he said that the communion voted for that in 1930. Interesting how he correlates that with the permission of contraception.

I don’t think that is what he said, since they didn’t.

 

[Mr_Sun]

I read it but didnt notice that it was in California.

had a strong feeling it was about California.

looked and saw it was…

+1 point for Mr Sun… -10000 respect for California. If my respect for California wasn’t already in the toilet.

 

[larkin31]

I’m not sure where we disagree? I’m saying the same thing as you basically. I should not have to feel guilty for seeking pleasure in intimacy and not every marital encounter is a deep, boundless, spiritual experience mentally for a husband in wife. I’m agreeing with you. Pleasure-seeking to a certain degree is normal IMO in sexuality. Husbands and wives having needs that need to be met is normal Does it get down to urges and being “in the mood” and not just some religious euphoria in which both partners feel they’re cooperating in a timeless universal eternal act of glory? Absolutely. Sex does not have to be an over-thought intimacy bonding soulmate session everytime. I think we agree? I’m not sure where we disagree?

I merely pointed out Augustine to show that there are extremes. Augustine was indeed a recovering sex maniac. He had lived a debauched, irresponsible, selfish sexual lifestyle. After becoming Christian he did have a real overreaction to sexuality not just because he felt guilty about his former life but because he realized the DANGEROUS potential sexuality holds…and it does! Sex can yield promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, pedaphilia, pornography, you name it. If not kept in check and properly understood, sex can be a pandora’s box of vile sins. Augustine had opened that box. It scared him the potential. He had a cynical attitude about it as a result.

Sex “yields” children, nothing else.

And sex cannot “yield” homosexuality any more than it can yield heterosexuality. Sex is not the CAUSE of these things, it is the RESULT.

Maybe you mean actually to comment on DESIRE here, the underlying emotional/physical drive.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey there Mr. Sunshine, stop dumpin’ on California. I’m proud to be a Californian!..especially when Kobe and the boys are ready to bring us another title! There are a million great things about this state along with the disfunction and flaws. No state is perfect, especially CA, but I wouldn’t live anywhere else.

I read it but didnt notice that it was in California.

had a strong feeling it was about California.

looked and saw it was…

+1 point for Mr Sun… -10000 respect for California. If my respect for California wasn’t already in the toilet.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Boy larkin, you make it hard to support you and try to agree with you. I’m not going to restate my opinions and views here. I’ve made them clear. If they’re not precise enough for you and you can’t see my agreement with you, then so be it. Whatever…

Sex “yields” children, nothing else.

And sex cannot “yield” homosexuality any more than it can yield heterosexuality. Sex is not the CAUSE of these things, it is the RESULT.

Maybe you mean actually to comment on DESIRE here, the underlying emotional/physical drive.

 

[DCNBILL]

You know, but won’t say?

You know, but will not believe.

 

[SteveVH]

Great post, Steve. The “humping” reference was a bit over the top for CAF though LOL!

Yeah, you’re probably right. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[larkin31]

You know, but will not believe.

I know what?

I don’t believe in God, no. Are you referring to something else?

 

[larkin31]

Boy larkin, you make it hard to support you and try to agree with you. I’m not going to restate my opinions and views here. I’ve made them clear. If they’re not precise enough for you and you can’t see my agreement with you, then so be it. Whatever…

I do see some agreement and have acknowledged it…

oh well

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Shoot, Steve, I was kiddin’, man. I thought it was funny. You didn’t offend, you gave me a chuckle. We need something colorful around here once in a while!

Yeah, you’re probably right. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think that is what he said, since they didn’t.

Actually I think he did say that. And they do correlate.

Once you remove pro-creation from the sexual act, and make such judgment seem reasonable and permissible, then the homosexual act becomes permissible and if permissible then there is no reason why practicing homosexuals should be excluded from the office since obviously contracepting persons are allowed in.

 

[Stephen168]

Is pleasure the first purpose, the ultimate good, found in the sexual act? Is sexual pleasure the first purpose of marriage? Do you require a spouse or someone else for sexual pleasure?
larkin31;6661482:

I did not say this, nor did anyone suggest it, except as a strawman. I said “some of the time” it seems to me perfectly natural to seek pleasure for pleasure’s sake with a spouse. Same with pleasure in food, music, art, and yes…sex. What is wrong with pleasure?

So you agree that pleasure is not the primary purpose for the sex act.

I agree with everything else you write here, and agree that a balance of love and pleasure and bonding and sharing is the ideal.

Are you suggesting the only way to experience love, pleasure, bonding, and sharing is through the sex act? Or is there more to it; something so unique that it would make homosexual sex contrary to God’s plan (the natural order and design).

 

[larkin31]

So you agree that pleasure is not the primary purpose for the sex act.

Yes, I agree, that the primary biological purpose is conception.

Are you suggesting the only way to experience love, pleasure, bonding, and sharing is through the sex act? Or is there more to it; something so unique that it would make homosexual sex contrary to God’s plan (the natural order and design).

I don’t believe in God, nor, then, in a plan.

And “natural order” is a subjective term, and usually limiting in scope and idea. Our sensory organs and physical appendages have many purposes, primary and secondary and tertiary, etc. And human life is far more complex than the rule within this dichotomy: “primary purpose or ‘disorder.’”