NARTH of God?

"...wording is critical." It is, and having a chance to flesh out what one means is also. However, even when one fleshes it out with the utmost care and exhaustively so, it can fall on deaf ears (dead hearts in the Christian sense).

Are they free of temptation in Heaven? Jesus was tempted, but was he? Is there temptation and then there's temptation? It takes context to understand. We are given a finite number of words in the Gospels, for instance, but taking them all in expands our understanding of the terms in their places.

He did pray to have the cup taken away, but he also said that he came to drink it for us and our salvation, which sends chills throughout my body and wells up my eyes. He prayed but did not flinch. Was he tempted to run away? I don't think so. Regardless, he drank it for each of us and all of us together.

He came to take away. I believe homosexuality will be taken away.

If that happens with the aid of Reparative Therapy (RT), so be it. Whatever takes it away is of God in my book.

NARTH.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • jean -pierre katz

      I believe in God and the Bible. But I do not deny scientific reality.

      I would not turn to the book of Genesis to learn of the origins of the earth, the plants, the beasts,and man.

      The flood, Tower of Babel, first couple in paradise are just myths, between first appearance of man on earth and the building of cities was not one generation, but  more than two million.   

      So it is with sexual orientation. It is not something that you pray away or change with therapy. Science says that it is something that is determined before you are two years old and that it is enduring.

      Furthermore, I do not have to apologize for the Bible on this issue as I do with one generation between Adam and Cain etc.

      If I read the Bible about the world being created in six days I can argue that a day could be a billion years in Bible time. I do not need to rationalize changing sexual orientation.  The Bible never mentions sexual orientation. It talks about sexual behavior.   

                                                

      • Scientific reality, as you put it and as you are using the term science (not as I always use it, for my usage varies depending upon the intelligence and knowledge of those with whom I'm conversing), does not eliminate spirit. It does not, nor can it, prove or disprove it. It is silent on the issue and always will be.

        If you take the Genesis story as figurative, then if you also believe in the Bible as you claim, you will also turn to Genesis to learn of the origins of all things via the figurative lessons of Genesis.

        As for the flood, etc., an open mind and especially an open heart, will result in the certainty that they stand in for tangible, manifest things in the life of humanity. They are not stories handed down by imbeciles. There is a great deal that has been lost by humanity's distancing itself from what remains wondrous.

        As for so-called sexual orientation, what you've said is definitely not supported by the science to which you've referred. You are quite wrong about it. It appears you are simply regurgitating the babble of those who have one goal only: to dupe the gullible via the Big-Lie method of repeating and repeating false propaganda. They are failing and will certainly ultimately lose. That's guaranteed because what they are preaching is false and truth really does win in the end.

        When have you studied Reparative Therapy? When have you listened to a reparative therapist in detail and discussed with him or her his or her successes with those who have wanted to change from same-sex attraction to opposite? You strike me as someone who has not bothered to do those things.

        As for what the Bible does or doesn't say regarding homosexuality, it appears you've either not read it or have completely missed the point. Jesus is extremely clear about direction, inclination, orientation, or however else you would put it, and behavior and results not being able to be divorced. You should read it if you haven't. If you have read it, you should do so again but this time with a higher level of comprehension as your goal.

    • jean -pierre katz

      I agree with you that the metaphors of the Bible can teach us and uplift our spirits. I have never and would never say they were written by imbeciles.

      I believe they were inspired by God.

      As you say, science does not disprove the spirit.  But it does disprove those who would believe literally that, for example, the time-line from the appearance of the first humans to the building of cities was one generation and not millions of generations.I also don't think the overwhelming voice of mental health experts on the subject of reparative therapy are imbecilic propagandists.You asked me if  I have listened to a reparative therapists about his successes. I have.  Dr. Abba Borowitz conducted reparative therapy as a religious person on behalf of religious clients for 30 years. He came to the conclusion that it did not work to change orientation but only created severe heartache for his clients and their spouses, so he stopped this practice.This is the same conclusion of  some very well known fundamentalist Christian therapists.Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist and professor at the evangelical Grove City College recently surveyed 239 men in the "mixed orientation marriages" in which her husband is attracted to other men and women is heterosexual. About half of the males had been through a conversion therapy.

      Throughout their marriage, men, "same sex attractions increased ..." and "attractions for your spouse declined," according to Throckmorton.

      Another study by Mark Yarhouse, a researcher at Regent University - which was founded by Pat Robertson - reached the same conclusion.

      The leader of the Exodus, the largest audience of people (thousands) that changed from a gay to the heterosexual lifestyle admits that this does not include the end of same-sex attraction for 99.9% of the group.
      "There was a change in our beliefs about therapy focused change orientation and do not believe that it is effective."The head of the Baptist seminary also does not believe that sexual orientation is something that can be switched from on to off.Josh Weed is another example of  a therapist that believes in advocating for no same sex sexual relations, but accepts his sexual orientation as same sex and does likewise for patients that want to follow his path.Reparative therapy is based on theories about the etiology of sexual orientation that contradict the existence of sexual orientation in children that are 18 months old as was featured recently on 60 minutes.It seems to me that among those that want to encourage believers not to engage in homosexual acts, reparative therapy is the false preaching that is already loosing its market share among this group.

      • You wrote that science "does disprove those who would believe literally that, for example, the time-line from the appearance of the first humans to the building of cities was one generation and not millions of generations." Proof is subject to different definitions. Human knowledge is limited. We all know that. There is no proving except until after what constitutes proof is agreed. There are those who believe such that regardless of what is put before them suggesting the contrary, they will not accept other than that the Creation was six twenty-four hour days as we know them. Likewise, there are those who believe such that regardless of what is put before them suggesting the contrary, they will not accept that there is God. Agreed?

        "I also don't think the overwhelming voice of mental health experts on the subject of reparative therapy are imbecilic propagandists." Your statement there presupposes a great deal. I don't accept your premises. You are rather vaguely assigning expertise in RT to those who disagree with it when it is my understanding that, in fact, most experts in RT are practicing and perfecting it.

        Look, before we continue, I want to make clear that I consider pro-homosexuality to be a mental problem. No matter what so-called educational credentials a person may have, if he or she advocates for, or accepts, homosexuality as on par with, or superior to, heterosexuality where all other things are equal, then he or she is confused on the issue.

        "You asked me if I have listened to a reparative therapists about his successes. I have. Dr. Abba Borowitz conducted reparative therapy as a religious person on behalf of religious clients for 30 years. He came to the conclusion that it did not work to change orientation but only created severe heartache for his clients and their spouses, so he stopped this practice." Look, that's not success. That's one person's opinion concerning his own attempts at using what he claims to have been RT. I asked if you've listened to someone concerning successes, not the lack thereof. Do you always twist things around like that? If so, it certainly would explain a great deal about why you've come to the seeming conclusion you have concerning males sodomizing each other for instance. If you have not listened to successes, then go out of your way to do so before continuing in ignorance with having only heard one side.

        "Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist and professor at the evangelical Grove City College recently surveyed 239 men in the "mixed orientation marriages" in which her husband is attracted to other men and women is heterosexual. About half of the males had been through a conversion therapy.

        "Throughout their marriage, men, "same sex attractions increased ..." and "attractions for your spouse declined," according to Throckmorton."

        "...attractions for your spouse declined...." Ha, that happens to plenty of heterosexuals. Anyway, enough levity.

        Do you consider that something upon which to come to a definitive positions that RT doesn't work? Half the men involved are irrelevant on its face. What conversion therapy? For how long? Was change desired? The list of questions is as long as all of the possible variables. Regardless of Throckmorton's statements, he is aware that therapists have seen dramatic changes in people's sexuality.

        Look, go to the NARTH site (http://narth.com/) and spend several days, at least, reading. Visit Joseph Nicolosi's site (http://josephnicolosi.com/) and do the same. He has many hours of audio and video available wherein he explains the range of change that he's seen firsthand. Also, I can tell you from my own experiencing counseling that the mind is plastic and that sexuality is fluid. I also know many others who've had successes and who have personally changed. You're really way behind on these things and listening to people who are rather backward, to say the least.

        "Another study by Mark Yarhouse, a researcher at Regent University - which was founded by Pat Robertson - reached the same conclusion." No, that's not true. You should re-read him if you've read him at all.

        "The leader of the Exodus, the largest audience of people (thousands) that changed from a gay to the heterosexual lifestyle admits that this does not include the end of same-sex attraction for 99.9% of the group." Look, Alan Chambers is an extremely poor source to be citing (nearly scientifically devoid). Regardless, that 99.9 admits to people he's heard from directly who've told him that they no longer have any same-sex attraction at all. The issue though is not with 100% instant cessation of all such sensations, etc. The issue includes diminishment over time: how much and how quickly. A 90% reduction over a couple of years is huge. Given enough time and rewriting of the neuronal pathways with new behaviors, new feelings, thoughts, words, mannerisms, acts, etc., and there is no doubt whatsoever that homosexuality is far from immutable. Why you don't know and accept that is beyond me other than that, as I've concluded, you have been severely duped at best.

        "Reparative therapy is based on theories about the etiology of sexual orientation that contradict the existence of sexual orientation in children that are 18 months old as was featured recently on 60 minutes." There is zero way that any human adult knows an 18-month-old that has never been sexually abused, or what have you, is homosexual. Don't you know that?

        "It seems to me that among those that want to encourage believers not to engage in homosexual acts, reparative therapy is the false preaching that is already loosing its market share among this group." Actually, the truth is coming out more and more that RT has been right all along. I'm telling you, you are not going to win in the end.

        Now, I'm not interested in going on and on with you at this level. I've read and heard the pro-homosexuals. Go and do what I asked. Then if you have concrete examples of errors concerning NARTH's and/or Dr. Nicolosi's statements, take it directly to them and inform me here about the outcome. If you are right, fine.

        That's how I handle it. It's more than fair. You haven't been censored. You've had your say. You've given it your best shot with what you think you know. You haven't told me anything new. You've just indicated you don't know the other side of the story, and that's your problem.