Deeply felt love gives a relationship uniqueness—a uniqueness that helps give the love an intensity not usually experienced in other associations. However, compulsive pleasures of the flesh is like to be self-defeating; for after an attractive individual is found, we are likely to have the feeling “He [or she] does not really care for me. I am just somebody to have fun with.” And even if genuine caring does develop, these doubts are likely to continue, since we are full of self-doubts and may continue to assume we have been successful only in seducing the other person, not in winning the individual’s love. Handsome people, especially beautiful women, often have such a problem. They make maximum use of their physical attributes to attract the interest of others. Their beauty wins so much praise and attention from people, sometimes to the exclusion of other qualities, they then conclude they are valued for nothing else. When people are viewed as only being attractive, one is likely to say within, “It is not really me that is being loved. It is my beauty, which is not my full essence.” Pleasures of the flesh is sometimes used more as a way of manipulating others than as an expression of affection. Those who use pleasures of the flesh as a weapon of control probably feel inadequate to fight their battles on more open grounds. Fear of anger is often involved, and resentments are expressed in this covert way. Because of how transitory modern relationships have become, both individuals may fail to recognize or admit their feelings of caring. #RandolphHarris 1 of 11

One of the most interesting but often unrecognized facets of the relationship of pleasures of the flesh and love is that physical intimacy is often used a way of avoiding emotional intimacy. Since we long for love but are afraid to express caring, we often use pleasures of the flesh in relationships as a substitute or counterfeit for the experience of love. Or we may use pleasures of the flesh as a means of driving those away to whom we are potentially emotionally close. Some people are frightened by the opposite gender, and although they may want to be emotionally close, they fear the potential hurt they may feel in a genuine relationship. Without consciously trying to, some have developed a means whereby they can tell themselves one is asking for love and affection while in fact one is constantly pushing potential mates away with their overly aggressive desires for pleasures of that flesh that successfully conceal one’s real warmth. When it comes to pleasure of the flesh, in addition to other motives that may exist in those who are very aggressive (such as the attempt to prove one’s worth), there may be an unrecognized need to alienate people while seeming to be open, frank, and warm that is probably frequently present. If on a very short acquaintance a mortal approaches another person with an invitation dealing with pleasures of the flesh and is refused, one can then say to one’s self something like this: “I offered this individual my love, and he or she was too square [ or frightened, or antiquated, or proud] to accept it. #RandolphHarris 2 of 11

When such a proposition is accepted, on those occasions the chances of a genuinely satisfying experience of closeness is often extremely remote, as remote as reaching the peak of Mount Himalayas. For both persons are in a good position to have the feeling “I do not really know this person. This individual must be interested in me only for pleasures of the flesh. Therefore, I have got to protect myself by not getting emotionally involved.” And sometimes this can be a subconscious decision where a person may be rendered unattracted to someone they randomly had a casual and intimate encounter with and may not even realize why. In reality, however, they both may be longing for an experience of love, but the way in which the alliance began, coupled with the fear of love they both have, makes the possibility of fulfillment of their desire for love harder to get into than a Beatles concert (nearly impossible). At the end of the evening they are likely to exchange phone numbers, which they are likely never to use. One problem of many engagements is that the couple mistakes physical intimacy for emotional closeness. Many couple become enthralled with the excitement that goes along with the physical closeness that they love each other. Often their feeling for each other is based on only the vaguest knowledge of one another. Sometimes one or both of them may have the feeling “If this individual really knew me, one would not care for me.” Thus the amount of self-revelation may have been consciously limited. #RandolphHarris 3 of 11

For others the revelation of the self may be thwarted without any particular awareness of the fact that it is happening. And the handy substitute of physical intimacy may successfully conceal the fact even from the participants themselves that they are afraid of love. It is not being suggested that physical intimacy (whether it includes pleasures of the flesh or not) inevitably limits self-revelation and emotional intimacy. It need not be so at all. However, when individuals are so afraid of the vulnerability of love that they are reluctant (consciously or not) to enable another to see themselves as they are, physical intimacy provides a handy way of seeming to be free and open while revealing very little of one’s self. And although physical closeness can be used as a way of avoiding emotional closeness, emotional closeness cannot usually be experienced to it fullest without it. If you want to test this idea, try sitting ten or twelve feet across a room from a person you love and expressing your love from that distance. You will probably feel awkward and embarrassed. When a person is sitting next you in your arms, how much more natural it seems. Absence makes the heart grow founder, but too much absence makes the heart wonder. In fact, 42 percent of long-distance relationships have a chance of not working out because many couples find it difficult to deal directly and verbally with the tensions that arise in their contacts with each other because of their self-doubts and the doubts of each other’s love. #RandolphHarris 4 of 11

Many couples use satisfying pleasures of the flesh as a form of unspoken communication, reassuring each other of their love. The ideal, of course, would be to have both the spoken and the unspoken ways of expressing love and working through conflicting feelings. It follows naturally from what has been said that a person’s ability to experience emotional freedom and express themselves in a productive manner is part of the freedom to love. Since all of us have some fear of love, we will from time to time have issues in our relationships. It is a matter of degree. The fear of love is expressed in many different ways and some who are quite frightened of love may be relatively free to experience pleasures of the flesh, as already suggested, and use it as a way of avoiding the experience of love. What seems to be missing is the rich texture and three-dimensional quality that would be present if individuals were secure enough within one’s self so that one can reveal one’s self and experience and express one’s love to another person. One’s fear of being hurt makes this an impossibility for some at present. Many people have the difficult task of becoming aware of their self-hatred and discovering that they are worthy of love from themselves and others. #RandolphHarris 5 of 11

Peter has been badly emotionally damaged in his ability to love and his ability to experience and express his sexuality. He does not allow people to get close to him. He is uncomfortable around all people, particularly women; and he tend to be a loner insofar as any meaningful relationships are concerned. He is frightened of pleasures of the flesh and his fantasies that he will be castrated or maimed in some way upon experiencing pleasures of the flesh. Peter says there is a complete lack of feeling on his part—even physical sensation appears to have been largely missing. Peter will probably have a long and difficult tie achieving any kind of pleasures of the flesh or a loving relationship, even with professional help, since his fears are crippling. Our disgust with pleasures of the flesh are often potential doorways to greater enjoyment because they often mask appetites that are unacceptable to us because of fears and inhibitions we have learned sometime during out lives. However, as we gradually learn that it is worth the risk to open up to the experience of love, and as we gain confidence in our ability to handle whatever hurts may occur, our growing freedom to love will also probably be expressed in a growing freedom to be open to a healthy relationship. #RandolphHarris 6 of 11

One of the most widespread human problems of modern society is making contact with other humans. Painfully few methods for meeting are socially acceptable, a condition that makes for much human heartbreak. Furthermore, the discomfort in actually verbally engaging another person, in knowing what to say, or what to do prolong and develop the association, is a serious problem for far too many. The agony of this situation is underscored in the extremes found in psychotic patients, many of whom simply have not learned how to enter the human race, how to make contact with another person. When the issue is one of learning how to join with others, there are methods to work around this. Myth is a narration which assumes an art form and thus becomes universalized. Myth has the symbolic power of art, and like any work of art, myths help us to make sense of our World. Like other forms of art, myths relieve our excessive anxiety and guilt feeling and enable us to live in times of turmoil with some inner balance and peace. Myth enables us to experience the universal meaning—say of love, of death, of joy, and even of adversity. More specifically, myth as an art form enables us to confront the events that would be the most hideous, such as the crucifixion of Christ, and to make of that hideousness a form of beauty and meaning. #RandolphHarris 7 of 11

 The Son of Man and the Son of God lives out the grand scenario of the suffering servant and then dies that all of us may be saved. How powerful this scenario is! It makes one understand (though not necessarily agree with) the fundamentalist ministers who say “We preach Christ crucified and risen from the dead.” Consider how many thousands of paintings have been made of the crucifixion through western history, from Cimabue’s through El Greco’s to the most insignificant canvas in the Vatican. This myth has inspired almost every painter in Christendom to give his or her version of the heroic happening. And consider how many statues have universalized Christ’s sufferings, from the countless mosaics to Michelangelo’s Pieta down to the crucifixes on the walls of hundreds of thousands of churches. The great beauty that such a cruel scene calls forth is astonishing indeed. Seeing Queen of the Damned, for example, as mythic, we are freed from excessive anxiety in strange ways. We see the dynamics of a savior and loving relationship, treachery, deception, and the war in perspective; we see it externalized, made universal. We conceive of the war as part of the long path down through the ages of mortal’s inhumanity to mortal. This relieves us of excessive guilt: it is not just ourselves who case this choreography of horror; war is a human paradox. #RandolphHarris 8 of 11

Many people still assume that they are their country’s people and should be ready to die for freedom. This feeling typically takes the form of patriotism. Other persons who would not agree that political freedom is dying for would nevertheless state the same thing about psychological and spiritual freedom—the right to think and to command one’s own attitude from the 1984 type of spiritual surveillance. For reasons that are endless in their variety and that are demonstrated from the beginning of history down to the freedom marches and freedom rides of this century, the principle of freedom is considered more precious than life itself. We have only to glance at the long line of illustrious person to see that, in the past at least freedom, was our finest treasure. People will endure hunger, fire, the sword and death to preserve only their independence. Human beings sacrifice pleasures, repose, wealth, power and life itself for the preservation of this sole good. To accept the principle that freedom is worthless for those under one’s control and that one has a right to refuse it to them forever, is an infringement of the rights of God himself, who has created mortals to be free. If it is not supported by something which maintains itself by its own power, and this is nothing but freedom, the whole of knowledge has no status. #RandolphHarris 9 of 11

 The first postulate of all philosophy, to act freely in its own terms, seems as necessary as the first postulate of geometry, to draw a straight line. Just as little as the geometrician proves the line, should the philosopher prove freedom. The truth of freedom is self-evident; that is an inalienable right. Freedom is axiomatic, even to think and talk presupposed freedom, means no proof is necessary. The capacity to experience awe and wonder, to imagine and to write poetry, to conceive of scientific theories and great works of art presupposes freedom. All of these are essential to the human capacity to reflect. Almost every moralist in human history has praised freedom. Why these unending and extravagant panegyrics? Why should freedom be so venerated, especially in a World where practically nothing else is granted that devotion? The expressions such as to love our neighbor in God, or for God, are misleading and equivocal. A mortal has all one can do, even if one concentrates all the attention of which one is capable, to look at this small inert thing of flesh, lying stripped of clothing by the roadside. It is not the time to turn one’s thoughts toward God. Just as there are times when we must think of God and forget all creatures without exception, there are times when, as we look at creatures, we do not have to think explicitly of God. At such times, the presence of God in us has as its condition a secret so deep that it is even a secret from us. #RandolphHarris 10 of 11

There are times when thinking of God separates us from him. Modesty is the condition of nuptial union. In true love it is not we who love the afflicted in God; it is God in us who loves them. When we are in affliction, it is God in us who loves those who wish us well. Compassion and gratitude come down from God, and when they are exchanged in a glance, God is present at the point where the eyes of those who give and those who receive meet. The sufferer and the other love each other, starting from God, through God, but not for the love of God; they loved each other for the love of the one for the other. This is an impossibility. That is why it come about only through the agency of God. One who gives bread to the famished sufferer for the love of God will not be thanked by Christ. One has already had one’s reward in this thought itself. Christ thanks those who do not know to whom they are giving food. Moreover, giving is only one of the two possible forms love for the afflicted may take. Power always means power to do good or to hurt. In a relationship where the strength is very unequally divided, the superior can be just toward the subordinate either in doing one good with justice or in hurting one with justice. In the first case we have almsgiving; in the second, punishment. If one wants to become a World-famous theologian, it seems on various problems of, one should speak profoundly to both mind and heart.  life#RandolphHarris 11 of 11