PaulS

As a member Pete, I should imagine you have just as much right and value in having your opinions concerning the direction of the church, as anyone else. Churches change and although I don't know much about the CoE, I am sure some of the way they do things has changed over time. What I mean is, just because you don't agree with the way the church 'does' some things doesn't mean you are wrong or not a true Church of Englander. I agree that constant complaining might not be the way to go, but working for change from within could be.

That's how I am seeing it too Romanash, as Dutch presented too I believe. I was questioning if the natural sexual orientation of a person isn't a particularly strong argument for acceptance. Even if a person is sexually oriented toward children, it can not be allowed to play out because of the harm it does. Conversely, homosexual orientation is no more harmful than heterosexual orientation can be when otherfactors come into play (i.e. the same issues arise in sexual relationships between gays as straights and vice versa). So I guess where all this started was that I was wondering if conservatives are going to start arguing the "yes, homosexuality IS natural" card because then they can try to pull it down with the "but natural doesn't mean wholeness" argument.

True, but the point I meant to make was that the article (and a number of others sources I have read thus far) idicates that peadophiles have a sexual orientation toward children - it says nothing about a sexual orientation toward dominating ("A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says").

Pete, I liken it to politics or any cause for that matter. Only the individual can decide what's right for them. Some people stay with a cause or party, even if they disagree on a numbers of matters, because the cause means something for them and they would like to see it head in their direction. If you feel passionately enough about the Anglican Church heading in your direction, then I'd suggest you try and participate in that change. If you don't feel passionate enough about contributing to trying to change things, then be at peac with them as they are or move on, as you seem to have done. Just my opinion. Cheers Paul

From what I read, paedophillia isn't about the urge to dominate but about a sexual orientation toward children. This article here makes the point that there are child molesters, and there are paedophiles. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia

Lol. No probs, of course.

With my recent input into some discussions concerning homosexuality, it's perhaps not far from the truth to say I am prepared to share some of my time in the "day to gay" management of this site, Joseph Thankyou for the opportunity to contribute to the success of this forum - success being measured by the meangingful and respectful dialogue we can all enjoy here on our own individual journeys of discovery. I hope I do things right and I encourage all and sundry to PM me with any constructive criticism concerning how I fulfil my duties, at any time. Cheers Paul

Steve, I think it is only 'natural' to be offended I did try to be sensitive about my questions and I certainly do not associate paedophillia with homosexuality, other than my question as to whether paedophillia is a natural sexual orientation just as heterosexuality is. As I mentioned, this was sparked by my conservative Christian friend diverging from the "homosexuality is un-natural" argument to now saying it IS natural, but that that's the problem (according to him). If the naturalness of being a paedophile holds, and we expect them to control their natural sexual orientation, my friend is using that argument to say homosexuals should also control their natural sexual orientation because it is against God's.....whatever. Along with you, my counter argument is that homosexuality is about love and relationship, and not power and abuse (except for certain individuals but they exist as heteros too). But as a way of dissuading him from the view he holds, I was/am looking for a counter argument to his view that even though gay is natural, it should be stood against/refrained from. But as you see I started another thread to avoid associating the two subjects.

I don't know any paedophiles so I can't know if there is a similarity for certain. I do know several men who have cheated. I suspect there is a difference though. As you perhaps accidentally allude to - the cheating is 'one time or another', perhaps opportunistic, perhaps partly fuelled by alcohol or even because things 'aren't all that good at home', it may be about satisfying their ego even. I don't think it is their full time attraction so to speak. Whereas I suspect to the paedophile, the impulse or attraction is constant, perhaps even almost the same as yours or my attraction to members of the same/opposite sex, whatever the case may be.

Thanks Dutch, and others. Whilst I don't agree that our current best effort IS good enough neccessarily, I think it is beyond the scope of this forum to get much further. I appreciate the thoughts that others have thrown up too. Dutch, I think the courts and our legal system are often a compromise between efficiency and cost, vs adequacy. It is what we have for now, but I would suggest our legal system has improved over the years and hopefully will continue to do so. Cheers Paul

I wonder Monty if it might be because PC's generally arise out of an exisiting religous framework, and either don't see the need or don't desire to operate under 'another' framework, but rather feel less need to be associated with any particular 'church'.

This topic for me started when comparing the argument for heterosexuaity & homosexuality being natural, versus a paedophile's sexual orientation toward children being natural. But the more I have looked into it the more questions arise concerning paedophillia. In a sense I am trying to better understand if the way we look at peadophile offenders is justified. If need be I will reiterate that paedophile behaviour is NOT acceptable under any circumstances, ever. I also have two sons, 8 & 6, and the thought of them ever being harmed by a paedophile sickens me. However I am trying to better understand paedophile behaviour. Hal states above that in his opinion,paedophiles are usually alcholic or drug addicted. More and more research is being unconvered that suggests some people are genetically predisposed to poor impulse control (I generally think people don't set out to become alcoholics or drug addicts). So what does that say about a person who is 'naturally' sexually oriented towards children and who genetically suffers poor self control? Are they sick and twisted, or do they have an incredibly heavy burden to bear that most of us can never understand or appreciate? It seems that our culture and legal system stands on the premise that when we do bad things we could always have chosen to do otherwise. But is research starting to demonstrate that this is actually not as black and white as it first seems? If I suffered poor impulse control because I am born that way, am I the same as a person who doesn't genetically suffer poor impulse control? And if that being the case, is it time to start looking at paedophiles as not simply sick & twisted creatures, as though they 'choose' to be what they naturally are, and time to consider a different view?

Thanks Hal.

Hal, I am interested in your thoughts - do you think paedophiles have a natural sexual orientation towards children? Paul

I concur.

This thread stems from dialogue elsewhere where I discussed how a fundy Christian friend of mine used the argument for natural sexual orientation against homosexuality. Part of my argument for acceptance of homosexuality is that it is a natural sexual orientation. He argued that so is paedophile behaviour. It would appear that paedophile behaviour is regarded as a mental illness (according to Wikipedia), but then so was homosexuality not so long ago. To be clear I accept homosexuality to be a natural sexual orientation for some and I have no truck with homosexuality. I do not associate paedophile behaviour with homosexuality. A loving gay relationship is no different to a loving heterosexual relationship in my book. Furthermore I acknowledge that paedophile behaviour is harmful, hurtful, and cannot be permitted under any circumstance. With that disclaimer out of the way, I am looking to discuss how people view the argument for gay acceptance because homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and not a choice, in light that paedophile sexual orientation is possibly natural and not a choice. A sensitive subject no doubt, but it's challenging me and I'm trying to understand it. Any thoughts?

I don't want this matter to be confused with accepting homosexuality, so I will set up a new thread.

Halinsalem, Do you think their desire to dominate comes naturally or do you think they have to deliberately develop it? Is it a choice or a natural inclination? Much like one doesn't choose to be gay, I am trying to understand if a paedophile chooses to be a paedophile or not? There is no argument from me as to whether a paedophile should be allowed or not to act on their sexual orientation, if indeed they are sexually oriented toward dominating children, but like a hetreo or homo sexual orientation, i am trying to discuss if paedophiles are born 'that' way. Do you think paedophile attraction is natural, is a mental illness, or do you think paedophiles choose to be attracted to children rather than another sexual orientation? Thanks for a meaningful contribution Steve. Much like a gay person knows at a certain point of their life that they are gay, I wonder if paedophiles know at a certain point they are paedophiles by natural inclination, or if they 'become' that way at a certain point in life because of their experiences such as being victims of a use themselves.

I'm not sure whose or what criteria you are referring to Dutch, or why. I'm not saying we should allow people to be paedophiles or saying that because they have a 'natural' sexual orientation towards children that society has to accept this because it's natural. What I am questioning is the argument concerning justifying something because it is 'natural', an argument often used (as I have) to argue for homosexual wholeness. I am questioning whether that is a valid reason in light of my questioning concerning if paedophillia is a 'natural' sexual orientation too, as repulsive and disgusting as I find it. It seems to me that perhaps the 'natural' argument is irrelevant.

I agree it is not relevant when considering what we allow people to do or not do in society. I most definitely agree that paedophillia is harmful and unacceptable. But if heterosexual or homosexual inclinations are natural, couldn't paedophillia inclinations also be natural to a minimal percentile in society?

What do you make of a situation where Jesus doesn't do the healing?

Hmmm, I don't recall saying or even hinting that this group is not for you, so I'd like it to be clear that such is your interpretation alone. As I raised previously, although you seem to take the line that you see things that you think are important quite differently than most here on the forum seem to see them, I am still not clear on where you draw that line. It seems you too don't accept everything attributed to Jesus as being of Jesus, but when others question some of this you seem to say indicate that this isn't what you think things are about. Maybe I am missing something, but to me it seems you agree with those who questions what is/isn't Jesus, but want a line drawn somewhere in the sand, when in my opinion one can't be drawn. In any event, I have enjoyed interacting with you and I hope you do see fit to return to join in discussion any time. Cheers Paul

Adultery and stealing involve deceit, harm, and a power imbalance. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has the potential to harm as any person does, however the sexual orientation itself is not a sin nor is it anything for any homosexual to be ashamed of. IMO, to categorise homosexualityas a sin using a couple of ambiguous references made by Paul, is more than dubious.

Bill, I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that God & Jesus can be just WHATEVER we want them to be, particularly in the context of Progressive Christianity, but I certainly do agree with you that first world you mention is not an option. I think there IS a consensus view here of what people think the main thrust of Jesus' message is - to love, to have compassion, to hold each other up. I am happy that we are free to debate and question and scrutinise what is said about or attributed to Jesus. To me, none of that detracts from the picture I hold about Jesus. Does it mean I am uncertain about what 'God' actually means/is? Do I know for sure what happens after I die? Is there really a hell and a heaven in some sort of afterlife? Is even entertaining all of these thoughts just a waste of time? Perhaps I will find out one day, perhaps I won't. In the meantime I have one choice - to live. And to help me live what I consider a happier and more fulfilled life I usually bring to mind many of the messages attributed to Jesus. Not all of them of course, but many. Does this come from God? Who knows. But I don't apologise that I don't fit other people's definition of a Christian. To be honest, maybe I am even a little antagonstic towards those who want me to deny Jesus because I don't hold their view of what a Christian is. I got enough of that when I turned my back on fundamental Christianity. Whilst I think I understand what you're saying about PC perhaps not being Christian enough by definition, in that you feel it doesn't somehow focus enough on Jesus in some way, I can't say that this makes sense to me. Just what is it you want PC to be? We have to agree on what Jesus said or didn't say, according to Bill? We shouldn't disagree or dicuss what Jesus is or isn't because it's tiring? To me the 'middle ground' you wish for simply means sliding the scale in one direction till it reaches 'Bill' point. It seems to me that you want more certainty than this group provides, but not so much certainty that you feel you're back in the clutches of dogmatic fundamentalism. It seems on the scale of things you wish most of us grouped around the same point concerning God & Jesus rather than be spread out along the scale as most of us seem to be. I don't have a suitable answer to your dillemma of living in between two worlds and wanting something else. My only thoughts are don't worry about it too much and don't get hung up on it not being exactly what you want. But that of course is advice that has to fit for oneself - it works for me but I'm sure not others.

To the contrary Bill, discussing what Jesus' teachings may be and may mean is what actually attracts me to Progressive Christianity and IMO, is entirely relevant. It could be entirely valid, but I think any sensible discussion might ask how you came to that viewpoint and what indicators pointed you to that view. I'd certainly be interested in what gave you an impression of such a Jesus. So Bill, do you find ALL the teachings of Jesus as espoused by some, as accurate and appropriate? Do you accept the teachings attributed to Jesus that indicates unbelievers will suffer in an eternal Hell? Or do question some of what is attributed to Jesus and actually say yourself that you don't think Jesus said this? I'm unclear as to just when you think we should question and when we have to accept something as the truth? One last point - I think Point 1 needs to be read in context alongside Point 5 - "Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes"