|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 2:45:00 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7866
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
OUR interpretation of the scriptures (and certainly most modern English translations) suggests that it is, although of course few of us are actually fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, so we can't say with absolute certainly. If we could, there would be no debate on this issue, this Forum thread would not exist, and the church would not be struggling with it to the extent that it is.
It really is not the least bit cryptic; the church understood perfectly what the Scriptures meant for some 2000 years; the debate is a political one, not one of interpretation.
quote:
THEIR interpretation of exactly the same (underlying) scripture argues that there is no express or implied condemnation of monogamous same-sex relationships - only specific homosexual acts in specific circumstances, typically involving some form of violence, idolatry, promiscuity and/or exploitation.
Marriage - the only Scripturally defined and advocated monogamous sexual relationship - is spelled out in the first few chapters of the Bible, and is clearly between a man and a woman. Couple that with the fact the one of the primary purposes of marriage is to produce and raise children, and it is absolutely exclusive of a homosexual relationship.
quote:
The moderators have made it clear that they do not want to see 'pro-homosexual' arguments discussed on this forum, presumably even in the context of informed scriptural debate, therefore it is not possible to look at WHY gay Christians believe that their monogamous relationships are not a sin. All we can say is, based on their interpretation of the scripture, that's what they believe.
And they are wrong.
quote:
It is interesting to note, though, that in another active thread in this Morality forum, a Christian lady's interpretation of the scripture tells her that drinking coffee is a sin against God, and she is most offended that other Christians would sin in her presence by drinking coffee. I can't remember what the final verdict was (did the coffee machine stay or go?), but I'm watching the thread with great interest.
Of course, coffee is never mentioned in scripture; homosexuality is, and marriage is clearly defined.
quote:
It does prove, though, that scripture is open to interpretation and disagreement, so we should be careful about suggesting that matters of morality and ethics are black and white when the great divisions in the church (up to the highest levels) would suggest otherwise.
No, it proves that there are issues about which scripture is clear (homosexual behavior being sin) and areas that scripture is silent, but could be applied as a matter of principle (drinking coffee).
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 3:01:50 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth
You're saying gay rights has been in the forefont since the 1960's??? Right up there with Vietnam, Watergate, and the like, huh?
No, not in the forefront. But the beginnings of it in its current form is usually attributed to Stonewall in the late sixties. And it all ready achieved one of its greatest goals -removing homosexuality from being considered a mental illness- by the seventies, just as the church as a whole was just beginning to deal with it in a more institutionalized way in the seventies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 3:44:34 AM
|
|
|
Mark_NZ
Posts: 5
Joined: 7/21/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, it proves that there are issues about which scripture is clear (homosexual behavior being sin) and areas that scripture is silent, but could be applied as a matter of principle (drinking coffee).
With the issue of whether or not long-term, monogamous gay relationships are a sin, the amount of controversy over this question suggests that it belongs squarely in the 'areas on which scripture is silent' file, not the 'areas on which scripture is clear' file.
All current scriptural references to homosexuality relate solely to specific sexual situations, usually involving negative aspects like violence, idolatry, exploitation, etc. This forms the basis of the counter-argument that loving, monogamous same-sex relationships are not a sin. The omniscient Lord would have forseen the current debate over this issue - why then is there no passage anywhere in the scriptures to the effect of, "A man shall not cohabit with another man as with a wife," or something like that? If there had been, voila! No more arguments. The Lord does not 'forget' to include things. If He had wanted such a passage in the scriptures, it would be there.
If scripture if so clear on the issue, how did the Anglican Church manage to find it scripturally sound to ordain a gay Bishop?
And according to the BBC, the Scottish Episcopalian Church's College of Bishops has said being a practising homosexual was not a bar to ordained ministry.
Reference - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4387185.stm
quote:
The debate is a political one, not one of interpretation.
If scripture really was clear on this issue, you're correct in that there would still be political debate - but none of it would be from within the church. Christians of all denominations would stand 100% united on the issue. Obviously they don't.
These documents from the National Council of the Uniting Church in Australia may be of general interest to those following this topic:
http://nat.uca.org.au/ASC/homosexualitynuca.htm (Point 17 is noteworthy for those who would suggest the scriptures are 'clear' on this topic.)
http://nat.uca.org.au/assembly97/current_policy.htm
< Message edited by Mark_NZ -- 7/25/2005 4:49:58 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 5:56:42 AM
|
|
|
WizzyPigabeth
Posts: 1275
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: CTU Los Angeles
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
quote:
ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth
You're saying gay rights has been in the forefont since the 1960's??? Right up there with Vietnam, Watergate, and the like, huh?
No, not in the forefront. But the beginnings of it in its current form is usually attributed to Stonewall in the late sixties. And it all ready achieved one of its greatest goals -removing homosexuality from being considered a mental illness- by the seventies, just as the church as a whole was just beginning to deal with it in a more institutionalized way in the seventies.
Well the person you were mocking in your post #73- asking how old she/he was blah blah blah to have been around since it started had said since the homosexual agenda became in the forefront , not since before it began.
< Message edited by karen_wizzabeth -- 7/25/2005 5:59:19 AM >
_____________________________
ZuZu's Petals
Read My Blog
"You do NOT want to try me...." -Jack
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 10:10:16 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7866
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
With the issue of whether or not long-term, monogamous gay relationships are a sin, the amount of controversy over this question suggests that it belongs squarely in the 'areas on which scripture is silent' file, not the 'areas on which scripture is clear' file.
No, the amount of controversy suggest that the gay lobby has political clout in the US (and Cananda and Europe); it has nothing to do with Scripture.
quote:
All current scriptural references to homosexuality relate solely to specific sexual situations, usually involving negative aspects like violence, idolatry, exploitation, etc. This forms the basis of the counter-argument that loving, monogamous same-sex relationships are not a sin. The omniscient Lord would have forseen the current debate over this issue - why then is there no passage anywhere in the scriptures to the effect of, "A man shall not cohabit with another man as with a wife," or something like that? If there had been, voila! No more arguments. The Lord does not 'forget' to include things. If He had wanted such a passage in the scriptures, it would be there.
Marraige is never defined as anything other than a realtionship between a man and a women; and it is primarily used in the context of producing a family; this excludes homosexual relationships by default. There is no support at all for 'monogamous same-sex relationships' it simply doesn't exist as a Scriptural consideration.
quote:
If scripture if so clear on the issue, how did the Anglican Church manage to find it scripturally sound to ordain a gay Bishop?
And according to the BBC, the Scottish Episcopalian Church's College of Bishops has said being a practising homosexual was not a bar to ordained ministry.
Reference - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4387185.stm
Because they didn't base it on Scripture; as I said it is a political consideration.
quote:
If scripture really was clear on this issue, you're correct in that there would still be political debate - but none of it would be from within the church. Christians of all denominations would stand 100% united on the issue. Obviously they don't.
No, the church throughout history has engaged I extra-Scriptural political debates; primrily, this issue is being fomented from political groups outside the church. Some churches don't even recognize the authority of Scriptures or the historical veracity of them, so it is no wonder they ignore the proscriptions contained therein.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 2:25:15 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7701
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Pyre,
An email has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 2:31:24 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7701
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Please do not use our Community to in any way promote or advocate the acceptability of same-sex unions/marriage, homosexual activity, or homosexual adoption rights.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 3:00:29 PM
|
|
|
Momof2anddog
Posts: 19
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: Maryland - home of the O's and the Ravens
Status: offline
|
[Edited by Admin for ignoring instructions. Please note the rest of my warning which reads as follows:
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message. ]
< Message edited by Fritzpw_Admin -- 7/25/2005 3:16:42 PM >
_____________________________
God Bless the Whole World - no exceptions!
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 6:14:55 PM
|
|
|
threeandme
Posts: 9
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote]THEIR interpretation of exactly the same (underlying) scripture argues that there is no express or implied condemnation of monogamous same-sex relationships - only specific homosexual acts in specific circumstances, typically involving some form of violence, idolatry, promiscuity and/or exploitation. [/quote]
THEIR interpretation serves only to justify their sin.
Mark_NZ, you read these scriptures and tell me where the Lord indicates that the homosexual acts He regards as "ungodly," "lawless," and "disobedient" are only those outside of a long-term, etc. relationship.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:9
Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners
the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Also, why do you keep ignoring the commands against fornication? Don't you think that they're relevant to this argument?
I can't agree with you that the controversy concerning this issue proves that the scriptures are ambiguous. On the contrary, the controversy only proves the depravity of man's heart.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/25/2005 7:53:58 PM
|
|
|
mec
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
I feel like I need to answer and then ask.
Homosexuality is a choice, people choose it. We do not choose our race or gender. When you choose your lifestyle, you also deal with consequences. Just because people feel justified beign gay, it doesnt make it right. So they try to impose on us that we are hypocrites and we are phobic.
and we are not tolerant. Tolerant has nothing to do with it. Example. Is the law tolerant of crime (majority)? No its not. You chose to commit a crime, you were not born a criminal, as such no one is born gay, why must I tolerate you if you chose your lifestyle. Its that simple. its only being non tolerant if it is based on gender or race.
They fly rainbow flags expressing their pride. Has is it right?
I have never heard of rapist days, or alcoholism days, or gambling days, killers day, no other sin has had its own day for pride and awareness of. They make it sound like they gain independence from what? or who? They are not justified.
How can they expect to win an uphill battle on marriage? do they think they can be blessed by God for havinng this union. Marriage is a santicty of the church. How can they disprove a portion of the Bible about homosexuality and expect to have a justified union. Its not right, and the killer part is they KNOW It
and they blame us that we're not tolerant or try to convict us that we're wrong, justifying their actions
I THINK NOT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 7:25:46 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth
Well the person you were mocking in your post #73- asking how old she/he was blah blah blah to have been around since it started had said since the homosexual agenda became in the forefront , not since before it began.
I apologize to Pyre if he feels I was "mocking" him, but "mocking" was not my intention at all, maybe you are reading a tone into it that I did not intend?
As to "forefront" I guess it depends on how you define it. The gay rights movement had already succeeded in fundamentaly altering the way US culture spoke about and viewed homosexuality by the seventies (I would say that even the perceptions of those against homosexuality were altered by the gay rights movement -even if they were still against it).-so I would actually say that it was in the forefront in the late sixties/seventies in that it was a major political movement that was resulting in major change.
If you define "forefront" as "what's on the front page" -I guess you could make the case that it wasn't always in the "forefront" (in the sense that it did not garner the media attention that vietnam and watergate did) -but I would argue that this would be a narrow definition given that something does not have to be on the front page to effect change.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2005 12:11:33 PM
|
|
|
Restrained
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Haven't been on in a while, so hello again.
See we're still on this debate. Ah, let's see:
Crime and sin are two different words. Crime is a punishable act here on Earth for everyone, regardless of your opinions on the matter. Sin is seen (by Christians) as punishable in the afterlife. Some people choose not to follow the Bible. If you believe what the Bible says, then follow it. Those who choose not to abide by the Bible should not have the values of others' religions pushed upon them. Religion is a choice that you must decide to follow or not. Laws are not a choice, and if not followed, you will be punished for breaking them. Murder, rape, kidnapping and theft cause harm to others, and are crimes. Homosexuality only affects those who choose that lifestyle.As far as people claiming that homosexuality is not a sin? Well, that's another story. Clearly the Bible does not approve of it. But, the Bible is not the Constitution, and is not enforced as law.
Homosexuals are probably seeking independence from a government who is denying them their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by not allowing them to love and marry who they want. That is their pursuit of hapiness. While you may not see it as such, it is. My personal "pursuit of happiness" involves professional wrestling. You may say, "How can you enjoy an activity that makes you bleed, breaks bones, and gets you hit in the head with chairs?" If it turned out that it was a sin, I would still do it. If it became illegal, I would rally in the streets until it became legal. People will naturally fight for what they love.
Ok, here we go...
What if a new administration came in and made religion illegal? Anyone caught worshipping would be prosecuted. Would you quietly accept this fate, or would you stand up and fight it until your rights were restored? I think I know the answer, and you do too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2005 3:34:38 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 939
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Well, here I go again... stepping in something sticky... I apologize in advance... I urge every one to ignore this ranting post... Call it a "warm" button, its not quite a hot button.
Read at your own risk. Don't flame me. You have been warned. I only will consider carefully thought out, rational rebuttals. Others will be ignored. And those who disagree with me, if you truly promote tolerance, I require you to then be tolerant of my opinions.
Really. If it will just make you mad to hear someone defend the tradiional scriptural view, then please don't read this. I'm serious.
To start off, let me say this: we are all sinners, fallen in this world, and in desperate need of a savior. I am a sinner no better than the next man or woman. If I were to cheat or steal or lie or have sex with a woman outside of marriage, it is no worse or less a sin than homosexuals engaging in sex with each other. Sin is sin.
In love we rebuke those brothers and sisters in Christ who err, and with mercy we admonish them to repent of sins and seek first the kingdom of God. Yes love the sinner and hate the sin. But it is not love to allow a brother or sister in Christ to sin to their own destruction. Hence, I offer a rebuke of those to whom this post applies.
I admit not have read every posting. I did read many. And in this debate as well as all the secular ones, the humanist ones, the progressive ones, the liberal ones, the eveything else ones, there is a common theme: people who support homosexuality as blessed by God want their opinion that it is right, to outweigh scripture that clearly says it is wrong every time it is mentioned. And in support of their opinion, they attack language translation (which seems to work just fine for the passages they agree with), they attack tradition as being something bad (except for the new traditions they want to promote), and they attack those that defend the scriptures for lacking something and being closed-minded (though they seem to close their minds to reading the scriptures as they are).
Were all the language translators for the last 1800 years concerned only with propagating the conspiracy to afflict the burgeoning homosexual population of the world? Was there an organization of language theorists in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and even later centuries that sought to push an anti-gay agenda? Why is it that only a very small percentage of Bible translators ever agree with the gay agenda? Why should I believe only those? Why are the vast majority of them wrong then? What are your credentials to say so besides your opinion?
Is my traditon of following the God-prescribed family model evil? Is the tradition of populating the world through male-female marriages to make babies evil and will doom society? Where is the tradition of sex outside of marriage exonerated in the scriptures? Where is the tradition of close, monogamous, sexual relationships as equivalent to marriage promoted in the scriptures?
Am I closed-minded because I consider the whole of scripture as the word of God? Am I closed-minded when I consider the scriptures all together, as an aggregation of insight into the mind of God and His plan for us? Am I closed-minded merely because your opinion differs from what I have carefully thought out over years, considered in prayer, studied dilligently, and made up my own mind based on the facts revealed to us through the scriptures? Indeed, am I closed-minded because all of creation clearly shows hundreds of billions of animals living and mating in male-female relationships with miniscule exceptions and I deem that natural?
The word of God cannot be made subservient to the opinions of humans. Should 4 billion people in this world believe that the earth is flat, planes would still fly around a globe. Should 4 billion people disagree with God, then 4 billion people are wrong. All the opinions on earth will not stay God's hand, whether His hand is offered in justice or in mercy.
When you begin to re-interpret God and His word to match your society, get ready to do it every few generations, because people will always disagree with each other. Only God is eternal and consistent.
I ask for your tolerance to this posting, and humbly request that the flames be kept rational and logically thought out.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules at "Ex-Gay" Ministries - 7/27/2005 3:56:01 PM
|
|
|
pthalomarie
Posts: 165
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, this is going to interesting.
I wish I could set this up more clearly, but here goes....
There is currently a bit of a buzz on the web about a 16 year old boy named Zach. Zach runs (or ran...his current status as to his health, and his ability to access the internet is unknown) a rather ordinary blog that originally consisted of the average, every-day thoughts of a teenager. Last winter though, he disclosed that he had told his parents that he was gay. At first, the posts that followed were touching, but not unusual - lots of hurt feelings, fighting with his parents, etc.
But this past summer, Zach's blog became a big deal. In May, he was told by his parents that they were sending him to Refuge, a ministry along the lines of Exodus that tries to help people renounce their homosexuality.
To quote Zach himself:
"Well today, my mother, father, and I had a very long "talk" in my room where they let me know I am to apply for a fundamentalist christian program for gays. They tell me that there is something psychologically wrong with me, and they "raised me wrong." I'm a big screw up to them, who isn't on the path God wants me to be on. So I'm sitting here in tears, joing the rest of those kids who complain about their parents on blogs - and I can't help it."
I can't link to Zach's blog itself, since what followed next caused a huge outpouring of visits and responses, many of which included four-letter expletives and less than polite comments about Christians and God.
What happened next was that Zach got a hold of Refuge's rules and regulations, a document that he wasn't supposed to see. Though Refuge tells their customers all the rules and regulations, when the clients are children, apparently they don't like giving out paper copies. The parents are e-mailed the list of regulations, so they can continue the therapy after the teen's time spent in Refuge is over. Zach got a hold of the list of rules.
So the following is a few excerpts of Refuge's rules and regulations. This isn't the whole document by any means, and I'm not going to claim that all of it is shocking or surprising. Most of it reads fairly normally, given what they're setting out to do. But there are a few parts that I think many will find a bit disturbing:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Refuge Program Rules
Exceptions to program rules will be granted by C.O.C. (Chain of Command) only.
2. No sexual/emotional misconduct. Any temptations, fantasies, or dreams are to be presented to oneıs staff worker only. Sexual misconduct includes viewing pornography, visiting an adult bookstore, emotional dependency, voyeurism, stalking, masturbation [it goes on to list all the various forms of sexual contact, so I'll leave the rest of this part out]
Sexual temptation, as well as the above, is not to be discussed between clients. This includes MI's (Moral Inventories) written on current sexual struggles or temptations).
3. No hugging or physical touch between clients. Brief handshakes or a brief affirmative hand on a shoulder is allowed (exception is when observed by therapeutic accountability).
4. Clients are to remain within the ³safe zone² while in the program. This "zone" is illustrated on a map of the Memphis area in the office. An exception is for clients who reside or are staying outside the safe zone, and commuting to the Love in Action campus.
Hygeine
1. All clients must maintain appropriate hygiene, including daily showering, use of deodorant, and brushing teeth twice daily.
Men: Men must remove all facial hair seven days weekly, and sideburns must not fall below the top of the ear (the top
of the ear is defined as where the ear meets the face below the temple). Clean business-like haircuts must be worn at all
times. Hair must be long enough to be pinched between two fingers.
Women: Women must shave legs and underarms at least twice weekly.
All: Only natural hair color is allowed. Hair that is colored, highlighted or streaked, mut be dyed back to its original color, or the color must be cut out before entrance into the Refuge program.
2. Attire: General
Modesty is expected. No tight, provocative, or suggestive clothing or spandex may be worn. No provocative or
suggestive mannerisms are permitted. Fresh undergarments are to be worn at all times. Boxer shorts of any kind are
considered underwear and are not to be worn as outer clothing. All clients must be dressed appropriately in clean,
unwrinkled clothes when leaving the house for the day. Men may not wear any jewelry (other than a watch and a wedding band) unless approved through a C.O.C. In addition to a watch and wedding band, women may also wear a pair of simple earrings (one earring per ear.) The clients may not wear Abercrombie and Fitch or Calvin Klein brand clothing, undergarments, or accessories.
Men: Shirts are to be worn at all times, even while sleeping. T-shirts without sleeves are not permitted at any time,
whether worn as an outer garment or an undergarment. This includes ³muscle shirts² or other tank-tops. Bikini-style underwear is prohibited.
Women: Bras must be worn at all times, except while sleeping. Thong-style underwear is prohibited.
Attire: LIA Campus
In addition to the General Attire above, the following items apply. No torn, ragged, or stained clothing is to be worn at
any time while on campus. Monday through Thursday, clients must wear pants, a clean shirt, and shoes or sandals with
socks. Jeans and a nice t-shirt are acceptable. On Friday, clients may wear clean, knee-length khaki or denim-style shorts.
No athletic or excessively baggy shorts may be worn on campus at any time. No hats, jackets, or overcoats are to be
worn on campus
Women: In addition to these guidelines, women may also wear skirts which fall at or below the knee. Women may wear
tank-tops only if they are worn with an over-blouse. Women may wear open-toed shoes or womenıs dress sandals
without socks. Bras must be worn at all times, except while sleeping. Sports bras may only be worn while working out.
No sleeveless blouses may be worn. All blouses and t-shirts must fit modestly (not extremely tight).
3. No cologne, perfume, or use of other highly scented hygiene products.
7. No continuing education while in the program. Home-school Refuge clients may be allowed to continue their studies during the program, pending approval by LIA staff.
10. Absolutely no journaling or keeping a diary outside of the MI process unless directed or approved by staff.
False Image (FI) Concerns
1. LIA wants to encourage each client, male and female, by affirming his/her gender identity. LIA also wants each client to pursue integrity in all of his/her actions and appearances. Therefore, any belongings, appearances, clothing, actions, or humor that might connect a client to an inappropriate past are excluded from the program. These hindrances are called False Images (FIıs). FI behavior may include hyper-masculinity, seductive clothing, mannish/boyish attire (on women), excessive jewelry (on men), mascoting, and "campy" or gay/lesbian behavior and talk.
2. As non-residential clients, Refuge participants must submit to an F.I. search every morning. With the exception of the very first program day, when they may arrive no later than 9:00 a.m., Refuge clients will arrive daily at the Love in Action campus no later than 8:50 a.m., waiting in a designated area until a staff member meets them to perform the F.I. search and check them in. Refuge clients may not enter any of the client spaces on campus before submitting to an F.I. search.
3. All photographs will be taken for the purpose of sobering re-evaluation. Clients may request to have pictures returned to them via C.O.C.
Relationship Issues
Emotional dependency and inappropriate sexual behaviors have their roots in unresolved relationship issues as well as poor personal or relational boundaries. As a key part to his/her recovery, each clientıs program will focus significant attention on resolving relationship concerns and cultivating healthy relationships, both within and outside of the program.
6. Clients may have no contact with anyone who has left the program prior to graduating without the blessing of the staff to do so. Clients may address off-limit persons they inadvertently encounter with a polite "hello" only.
Safekeeping Rules
1. All new Refuge clients will be placed into Safekeeping for the initial two to three days of their program. A client on safekeeping may not communicate verbally, or by using hand gestures or eye contact, with any other clients, staff members, or his/her parents or guardians. In case of a practical need, Safekeeping clients may write down their question or request and show it to another client, staff member, or their parent or guardian. Writing may only be used when absolutely necessary. Parents and guardians must enforce their childıs safekeeping status at home or in their temporary lodging.
3. Any client may be placed into Safekeeping at any time, at a staffworkerıs discretion.
Rules for the Home/Temporary Lodging
1. No discussing therapeutic issues at home. Keep conversations positive.
2. Clients must gain permission through C.O.C. to make or receive phone calls from friends and family members outside the program.
3. No cell phones, beepers, computers, or e-mail/internet access at. Exceptions by C.O.C. approval only.
6. No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the clientıs and the parentıs/guardianıs control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie.
12. Refuge clients must be accompanied by a parent during any trip to a public restroom.
13. No access to malls of any kind.
14. Clients are not allowed to visit any video, music or media stores that are not expressly Christian, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian. Clients may visit LifeWay Christian stores with a parent or guardian.
On-Level Rules
1. On-level clients may not speak to each other unless there is a potentially life-threatening emergency.
2. On-level clients are to spend no time alone with each other.
3. On-level clients are not allowed to ride in the same car unless C.O.C. permission has been granted, in which case, one must sit in the front of the car, and one must sit in the back of the car.
4. On-level clients, whenever in the same room, must always have exactly one person between them, whether sitting or standing. Planned activities such as church, Open Meetings, and socials are no exception.
Group Norms
9. Say "I love you _____" after each person is finished relating.
Refuge Program Parental Rules (not to be given to client)
1. No discussing therapeutic issues at home. Keep conversations positive.
3. Respect all Love In Action and Refuge rules. If you do not understand them, support the program in front of client at all times and gain clarification from LIA staff. Do not sabotage or defocus your client.
4. Donıt allow client to split your family. Unite to present stability and unity.
5. Your client is not allowed to talk to anyone outside of your home including friends or family. Do not tell client who has called for them or who is asking about them. Keep the thoughts of the client focused on his/her treatment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There was a brief entry after Zachs initial entry into Refuge. Apparently, he had run away, and managed to access a public computer. In it he said:
"I pray this blows over. I can't take this... noone can... not really, this kind of thing tears you apart emotionally. To introduce THIS subject... I'm not a suicidal person... really I'm not.. I think it's stupid - really. But.. I can't help it, no im not going to commit suicide, all I can think about is killing my mother and myself. It's so horrible. This is what it's doing to me."
Since the program ended in mid-June, it's unknown how it went for Zach, or what happened to him.
_____________________________
Have You shared the Gospel with someone today?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Rules at "Ex-Gay" Ministries - 7/27/2005 5:36:59 PM
|
|
|
kh31
Posts: 22
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
|
pthalo,
Great post. Thanks so much for sharing.
I was skimming through all the posts and came across one that struck me, that is, does God bless homosexual marriages?
Hmmm... II have an answer but I wont answer that yet. I want to ask something else, does God bless heterosexual marriages?
_____________________________
"This sand is my sins which are trailing out behind me, while I go to judge the sins of another." - St. Moses the Black
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Rules at "Ex-Gay" Ministries - 7/27/2005 7:17:20 PM
|
|
|
Momof2anddog
Posts: 19
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: Maryland - home of the O's and the Ravens
Status: offline
|
pthalomarie - egads.
< Message edited by Momof2anddog -- 7/27/2005 7:32:24 PM >
_____________________________
God Bless the Whole World - no exceptions!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Rules at "Ex-Gay" Ministries - 7/28/2005 12:28:07 PM
|
|
|
SmileyTish
Posts: 178
Joined: 6/23/2005
From: From the Edge of Beyond
Status: offline
|
Romans 1 -- read it. Says everything you need to hear about all sins including homosexuality.
_____________________________
I'm going crazy -- wanna come along?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Rules at "Ex-Gay" Ministries - 7/28/2005 5:12:49 PM
|
|
|
LadyBird736
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Neuron,
great post thanks!
kh31,
are you seriously asking if God blesses hetrosexual marriages? isn't God the one that created the marriage relationship between a man and woman? why wouldn't He bless it?
_____________________________
"Faith will bring a way to the impossible" -- Skillet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Rules at "Ex-Gay" Ministries - 7/28/2 | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
