First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

[Stephen168]

You did not demonstrate this; you only claimed it.

I demonstrated it and when you saw it, you wanted to change the subject. You are not the first to take that approach.

I keep asking you to explain the paradox (inconsistencies) in your position, and you simply tell me to study it more in a condescending way.

You have not shown a paradox that I can tell. You seem to ramble for awhile and end with a vague question like this:

So why do you chastise the one but not the other?

Now we are left to guess what ‘one’ and ‘the other’ mean. If you can’t clearly define ‘one’ and clearly define ‘the other,’ I’m not sure how we can agree that:

• I have not chastised ‘the other’
• and if I have not; is it a paradox

I am only questioning the moral criticism of non-reproductive sexual behavior. I see no logic in it.

I showed it to you and then you changed the subject. Then you denied seeing it. I don’t think you want to admit you see the logic of it. Another reason I see no benefit in continuing.

 

[larkin31]

I demonstrated it and when you saw it, you wanted to change the subject. You are not the first to take that approach.

Please show us where you demonstrated this.

You have not shown a paradox that I can tell. You seem to ramble for awhile and end with a vague question like this:
Now we are left to guess what ‘one’ and ‘the other’ mean. If you can’t clearly define ‘one’ and clearly define ‘the other,’ I’m not sure how we can agree that:

• I have not chastised ‘the other’
• and if I have not; is it a paradox

I explained this in detail. Mouth and singing (non- life-sustaining) and non-reproductive sex (non-life-sustaining). What is not clear about these two examples? I even went over my entire argument in detail. Which part do you not understand? Please quote from my post above and highlight the sentence(s) you do not understand. I will rephrase for you.

I showed it to you and then you changed the subject. Then you denied seeing it. I don’t think you want to admit you see the logic of it. Another reason I see no benefit in continuing.

I am still right on the subject of the moral sanction against non-reproductive sex. There has been no change of topic here.

 

[larkin31]

Again: ,How is ejaculation without possibility of conception any more “disordered” than using a mouth to sing? Either one, done exclusively, will lead to a failure to procreate. Either one, done occasionally, will not. Both behaviors put to use the organs in question using the full functionality of the body. Both behaviors are not reproductive, nor life sustaining.

Is there any part of this comparison that is not clearly expressed? If so, which sentence(s)?

Is there any part of this comparison that you object to? If so, which sentence(s) and WHY?

 

[larkin31]

… The answer is I have been using design and purpose. Our reproductive organs are designed for a unique purpose. There may be other uses but none of them are unique to their design. Using them contrary to their design is disordered behavior.

Is this where you say you “demonstrated” the “disorder” of non-reproductive sexual behavior? If not, could you indicate where? I am trying to get right back to where you think you “demonstrated” your claim.

 

[Stephen168]

I explained this in detail. Mouth and singing (non- life-sustaining) and non-reproductive sex (non-life-sustaining). What is not clear about these two examples?

Ok. You see a paradox in condemning the use of reproduction organs for non-reproductive purposes while at the same time not condemning the use of vocal cords to sing a song?

 

[larkin31]

Is this where you say you “demonstrated” the “disorder” of non-reproductive sexual behavior? If not, could you indicate where? I am trying to get right back to where you think you “demonstrated” your claim.

Is your non-reply to this question actually a “yes”, then?

 

[larkin31]

Ok. You see a paradox in condemning the use of reproduction organs for non-reproductive purposes while at the same time not condemning the use of vocal cords to sing a song?

I said “the mouth” to be specific. (I have no objection to any of the body’s organs,internal or external, being put to multiple uses, whether they further pro-creation or not.) I cannot imagine a God that denies non-procreative pleasure, provided that it is consensual and non-abusive or obsessive (a matter of degree). There is no biological imperative that every sexual act be possibly pro-creative, no “natural law,” no design imperative. That a mouth or vocal chords CAN produce song does not mean that they should do so exclusively; same with sexual organs. We know that sex is pleasurable and bonding (generally speaking), and both pleasure and bonding reinforce each other and are positive qualities. Pro-creative possibility is not necessary for either pleasure or bonding, and both of these facts, mutually reinforced, are positive for biological survival, whether the sex is ever procreative or not. Pleasure is the basis of the human bonding from birth on, and is done through or sensory organs. Later in life, that pleasure also develops in erogenous zones and enhances the bonding in mating pairs. This, generally speaking, enhances reproductive results as well, but reproduction is no definitional requirement in the bonding process, nor in the survival of the couple in question. Procreation is not the ONLY function nor ONLY purpose in the erogenous zones of our bodies. To claim that these zones of our bodies should ONLY be put to use in service of the making of more believers in God is a very strange and illogical argument, especially when you also argue from “design” function. “Function” and “purpose” are separate, but associated, issues.

Technically speaking, our hands, then, also are morally free to manipulate these zones and organs to the point of orgasm. After all, they were all designed within reach, and even children find this pleasure out “naturally.”

And the penis has more than one biological function as well. Just saying…

 

[Stephen168]

I said “the mouth” to be specific. (I have no objection to any of the body’s organs,internal or external, being put to multiple uses, whether they further pro-creation or not.) I cannot imagine a God that denies non-procreative pleasure, provided that it is consensual and non-abusive or obsessive (a matter of degree). There is no biological imperative that every sexual act be possibly pro-creative, no “natural law,” no design imperative. That a mouth or vocal chords CAN produce song does not mean that they should do so exclusively; same with sexual organs. We know that sex is pleasurable and bonding (generally speaking), and both pleasure and bonding reinforce each other and are positive qualities. Pro-creative possibility is not necessary for either pleasure or bonding, and both of these facts, mutually reinforced, are positive for biological survival, whether the sex is ever procreative or not. Pleasure is the basis of the human bonding from birth on, and is done through or sensory organs. Later in life, that pleasure also develops in erogenous zones and enhances the bonding in mating pairs. This, generally speaking, enhances reproductive results as well, but reproduction is no definitional requirement in the bonding process, nor in the survival of the couple in question. Procreation is not the ONLY function nor ONLY purpose in the erogenous zones of our bodies. To claim that these zones of our bodies should ONLY be put to use in service of the making of more believers in God is a very strange and illogical argument, especially when you also argue from “design” function. “Function” and “purpose” are separate, but associated, issues.

None of this negates the rational understand I have described.

And the penis has more than one biological function as well. Just saying…

I’m trying to think of a function that women can’t perform without one; except for the reproductive function.

 

[larkin31]

None of this negates the rational understand I have described.

This lack of rebuttal is the rhetorical equivalent of keeping your hands over your ears.

And I noticed that you have not manned-up to your “demonstration” that you climed to have made.

I am done with discussion on this topic with you. Have a nice day.

 

[Stephen168]

And the penis has more than one biological function as well. Just saying…

I’m trying to think of a function that women can’t perform without one; except for the reproductive function.

This lack of rebuttal is the rhetorical equivalent of keeping your hands over your ears.

 

[Stephen168]

I will say straight out, in an effort not to be seen as dishonest or pulling punches, that I consider the Catholic stricture on non-reproductive sexual acts even between husband and wife to be a form of neurotic extremist response to the complexity of human sexual behavior.

It now appears this is due to your lack of understanding. Reminds me of when I heard a guy say, “Cricket is a stupid game,” when he didn’t understand it.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
I will say straight out, in an effort not to be seen as dishonest or pulling punches, that I consider the Catholic stricture on non-reproductive sexual acts even between husband and wife to be a form of neurotic extremist response to the complexity of human sexual behavior.

Of course you do. You are clearly a materialist, and therefore acknowledge no intellect other than the human intellect, and utterly reject the supernatural and spiritual. (As a scientist, I’m quite familiar with the phenomenon of people who claim that science is the only path to knowledge, even in areas it cannot investigate.) The notion that such an approach can possibly comprehend a position of the Catholic Church, positions based on a much wider set of considerations than mere materialism, is comparable to attempting an understanding of calculus and at the same time rejecting the concepts of infinity and the limit.

Only materialists are confounded by complexity, not Catholics, because the materialist framework is too limited. Catholics know that not all truth is simple, let alone comprehensible to the human intellect. It is indeed vanity to assume that there are not truths that humans can apprehend, but not fully comprehend. An insistence on comprehension leads directly to the need to consider sexuality without reference to its role in the coming into the world of new souls, so it can be considered in mere (though somewhat complex) biological terms.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[larkin31]

Of course you do. You are clearly a materialist, and therefore acknowledge no intellect other than the human intellect, and utterly reject the supernatural and spiritual.

I do not reject “the spiritual.” A spiritual life is very important to many persons and to culture. I do reject the “supernatural.”

(As a scientist, I’m quite familiar with the phenomenon of people who claim that science is the only path to knowledge, even in areas it cannot investigate.)

I do not claim that empiricism is the only path to knowledge. Far from it.

Only materialists are confounded by complexity, not Catholics, because the materialist framework is too limited.

This generalization is clearly false. ALL types of people, myself included, are from time to time “confounded by complexity.” Why you would exempt yourself and your faith from this is really puzzling to me.

Catholics know that not all truth is simple, let alone comprehensible to the human intellect. It is indeed vanity to assume that there are not truths that humans can apprehend, but not fully comprehend. An insistence on comprehension leads directly to the need to consider sexuality without reference to its role in the coming into the world of new souls, so it can be considered in mere (though somewhat complex) biological terms.

This is not an accurate summary of what I have argued. NO ONE denies the reproductive purpose of the presence of sex organs in our species.

What do you mean by “an insistence on comprehension”? Is there something wrong with pursuit of knowledge, of whatever form?

 

[nhylan]

Of course you do. You are clearly a materialist, and therefore acknowledge no intellect other than the human intellect, and utterly reject the supernatural and spiritual. (As a scientist, I’m quite familiar with the phenomenon of people who claim that science is the only path to knowledge, even in areas it cannot investigate.) The notion that such an approach can possibly comprehend a position of the Catholic Church, positions based on a much wider set of considerations than mere materialism, is comparable to attempting an understanding of calculus and at the same time rejecting the concepts of infinity and the limit.

Only materialists are confounded by complexity, not Catholics, because the materialist framework is too limited. Catholics know that not all truth is simple, let alone comprehensible to the human intellect. It is indeed vanity to assume that there are not truths that humans can apprehend, but not fully comprehend. An insistence on comprehension leads directly to the need to consider sexuality without reference to its role in the coming into the world of new souls, so it can be considered in mere (though somewhat complex) biological terms.

Blessings,

Gerry

What a ridiculous generalization to make. This is just an attempt to dismiss non catholic viewpoints by the stupid over-glorification of your own faith. It’s not even an argument, I’m surprised Larken even bothered to reply. Not only that, but I would argue that Catholics LOVE the simplicity of their faith shunning individual faith in favor of letting their leaders decide for them. That would certainly be your average thinking protestants view of many aspects of Catholicism.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

What a ridiculous generalization to make. This is just an attempt to dismiss non catholic viewpoints by the stupid over-glorification of your own faith. It’s not even an argument, I’m surprised Larken even bothered to reply. Not only that, but I would argue that Catholics LOVE the simplicity of their faith shunning individual faith in favor of letting their leaders decide for them. That would certainly be your average thinking protestants view of many aspects of Catholicism.

Classification of the Catholic faith as 'Simple" is an avowal of ignorance of it.

And you are right. It is not an argument. It is not intended to be an argument, It is a rejection of an effort to frame an argument using a reduced dimension set.

And you are correct in your statement regarding a prevailing Protestant viewpoint, because, in essence, Protestantism is truncated Christianity.

One of the main reasons the Anglicans who have done so find it possible to ordain anyone and bless anything is that things like ordination and marriage have been truncated to mere human inventions, rather than received Sacraments or constituent fibers woven into creation. And what could be simpler than assuming that either of those things is merely a human invention?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Stephen168]

Of course you do. You are clearly a materialist, and therefore acknowledge no intellect other than the human intellect, and utterly reject the supernatural and spiritual. (As a scientist, I’m quite familiar with the phenomenon of people who claim that science is the only path to knowledge, even in areas it cannot investigate.) The notion that such an approach can possibly comprehend a position of the Catholic Church, positions based on a much wider set of considerations than mere materialism, is comparable to attempting an understanding of calculus and at the same time rejecting the concepts of infinity and the limit.

Only materialists are confounded by complexity, not Catholics, because the materialist framework is too limited. Catholics know that not all truth is simple, let alone comprehensible to the human intellect. It is indeed vanity to assume that there are not truths that humans can apprehend, but not fully comprehend. An insistence on comprehension leads directly to the need to consider sexuality without reference to its role in the coming into the world of new souls, so it can be considered in mere (though somewhat complex) biological terms.

Blessings,

Gerry

I agree that the Catholic Church is not limited by the scientific method when claiming the truth of something. But we do not reject it either. We have faith and reason. When the Protestant Churches started to allow the use of birth control (sex with zero chance of conception) inside of marriage they could not imagine what the future would hold. If one believed that married life with zero chance of children was OK, then it would be hard to argue against homosexual marriage. Of course the Catholic Church has not when down the road of giving a thumbs up to birth control, so she still seems to be consistent in her teaching on sex and marriage. While some non-Catholic Churches teach random morality that would seem irrational to some.

I don’t know if it is necessarily ‘materialist’ but there are people who just want to do whatever they ‘feel’ like doing because it ‘feels’ good to them, and the biggest obstacle they see is traditional orthodox Christianity.

 

[larkin31]

…One of the main reasons the Anglicans who have done so find it possible to ordain anyone and bless anything is that things like ordination and marriage have been truncated to mere human inventions, rather than received Sacraments or constituent fibers woven into creation. And what could be simpler than assuming that either of those things is merely a human invention?

…saying “God did it”?

 

[nhylan]

Classification of the Catholic faith as 'Simple" is an avowal of ignorance of it.

And you are right. It is not an argument. It is not intended to be an argument, It is a rejection of an effort to frame an argument using a reduced dimension set.

And you are correct in your statement regarding a prevailing Protestant viewpoint, because, in essence, Protestantism is truncated Christianity.

One of the main reasons the Anglicans who have done so find it possible to ordain anyone and bless anything is that things like ordination and marriage have been truncated to mere human inventions, rather than received Sacraments or constituent fibers woven into creation. And what could be simpler than assuming that either of those things is merely a human invention?

Blessings,

Gerry

You have over-simplified what anglicans believe. First off Ordination and Marriage are technically sacraments in Anglicanism but they aren’t typically viewed as important as baptism and communion because Jesus doesn’t actually mention the others in the same way he does baptism and communion. There are many things that could be simpler since Anglicans consider themselves part of the one holy catholic apostolic church.

and for whatever its worth, its not the Catholic faith that seems simple to many protestants, it is Catholic’s belief in that faith.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

You have over-simplified what anglicans believe. First off Ordination and Marriage are technically sacraments in Anglicanism but they aren’t typically viewed as important as baptism and communion because Jesus doesn’t actually mention the others in the same way he does baptism and communion. There are many things that could be simpler since Anglicans consider themselves part of the one holy catholic apostolic church.

and for whatever its worth, its not the Catholic faith that seems simple to many protestants, it is Catholic’s belief in that faith.

I see. The belief of Protestants isn’t simple, but the belief Catholics is simple. Riiiiight

And the first statement won’t hold water. Having served as an Anglican Rector’s Warden, I have met many, many Anglicans who assert that ordination and marriage are not sacraments at all. In that regard, they agree with the 39 Articles:

From Article XXV. Of the Sacraments.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God

.

Doesn’t look like a declaration of technical sacramentality to me.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[nhylan]

I see. The belief of Protestants isn’t simple, but the belief Catholics is simple. Riiiiight

And the first statement won’t hold water. Having served as an Anglican Rector’s Warden, I have met many, many Anglicans who assert that ordination and marriage are not sacraments at all. In that regard, they agree with the 39 Articles:

From Article XXV. Of the Sacraments.

.

Doesn’t look like a declaration of technical sacramentality to me.

Blessings,

Gerry

Your right it doesn’t, but then again the Anglican Church doesn’t follow the 39 Articles anymore as the basis of their faith, as a document it isn’t normative. AND if you read the Articles carefully it doesn’t say they other 5 aren’t Sacraments it says they aren’t sacraments of the gospel, meaning Jesus doesn’t particularly mention them. Many still consider them sacramental rites.

Saying you’ve met Anglicans who don’t believe there are 7 sacraments is like me saying I’ve met Catholic’s who think Anglican communion is just as good as Catholic communion. Just because they believe it doesn’t mean its the official position of their church.

I wasn’t saying that protestantism is more complicated than catholicsm, I was making the point that accusations of simplicity only serve to belittle the faith of those who follow said faiths.