HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT: SUGGESTIONS
HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT: SUGGESTIONS
HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT, by Julie Harren Hamilton Ph.D (Editor), Philip J. Henry Ph.D. (Editor). Publisher: Xulon Press (May 18, 2009). Language: English. ISBN-10: 1607916010. ISBN-13: 978-1607916017.
- Joseph Nicolosi, PhD.
- A. Dean Byrd, PhD., MBA, MHP
- Mary Beth Patton, MA, LPC
- Janelle Hallman, MA, LPC
- Esly Regina Carvalho, MS, LPC
- Mike Rosebush, PhD.
- George A. Rekers, PhD., ThD. [As of early May 2010, Rekers is embroiled in a sex scandal involving a male-homosexual prostitute. Whether or not the statements of people surrounding this are factual, other people cannot be painted with one brush. Each heterosexual is not responsible for the acts of every other heterosexual. The same applies for homosexuals.
"But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." (Jeremiah 31:30).
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27).
I, Tom Usher, agree with the sentiment there. Lumping all people together such as the racists do saying "all Blacks" this or "all Palestinians" that, as if all Blacks are responsible for what some Blacks do or all Whites are responsible for what some Whites do, is immoral. (* see: NARTH statement, below)]
- Kimberly Barnett Oram, PsyD.
To obtain the book at a discounted price, begin by clicking on the book's image above.
Would it not be wise to go beyond "ministry and church leaders," "lay counselors and pastors," "Christian counselors," and such language by saying something akin to "lay and clerical religious leaders"? Aren't Muslim clerics, Jewish rabbis, Hindu priests and priestesses, etc., also in need of the tools? Does promoting the tools to them connote an abrogation of Christianity, or does it do the exact opposite? Christianity itself truly doesn't even "need" science, but here is a book that for those who reject the pure healing of faith in God will at least receive some direction, which if truly followed to the only logical conclusion, arrives at God. That does though necessitate knowing which paths and parts not to follow or to tread that deviate endlessly from the narrow way.
Also, I wonder about the term "Unwanted Homosexual Attraction" as opposed to just "Homosexual Attraction" or just "Homosexuality." It's too late for this particular printing/edition, but shouldn't great consideration be given to overcoming homosexuality regardless of the starting point with any individual or group?
How do older adults and parents and grandparents and others begin to deprogram/change the minds of youth who are really on a harmful ideological bandwagon the direct result of false advertising/proselytizing by libertines and hedonists promoting vice?
My concern is with making unnecessary and detrimental concessions. The use of the word "Unwanted," to my way of thinking, has the unwanted effect of allowing many to dismiss the larger issue of homosexuality simply by saying he or she or they "want" it. NARTH has shown that homosexuality itself is dangerous, risky, and damaging. When does anyone escape the harm without making a full recovery? If the issue here concerns not forcing therapy upon people and especially children because the greater mass of "scientists" right now claim that there is no harm in homosexuality or that treatment is more harmful than homosexuality or that homosexuality is not mutable by virtue of genetics or for some other reason, then why not dig in at a point much closer to the truth of the matter and stake out the language there?
When a brainwashed child says to a rightly concerned parent, "I want it," then this new book is doomed from its cover. The children have been fed reasons for "wanting" it. Adults have created the language that children apply to each other as peer pressure. Parents and others need the countervailing and correct language (the mental challenges and answers and refutations) concerning all of that peer-pressure language.
Parents and counselors don't need to be infallible in every aspect of their beings in order to demonstrate to youth that in the absence of parental and other guidance, youth would self-destruct in most cases — repeating all the mistakes down through history. Who teaches the child not to run out into the street without carefully stopping, listening, and looking both ways, etc.? Is the child or youth going to appreciate the truth of that lesson or not?
The answer to who teaches that lesson is the adults in the child's life primarily and also other children who have already been trained up correctly on the issue or who as suddenly wide-eyed children, who didn't know the rule or simply dismissed it or weren't sufficiently impressed or attentive, has experienced heart-stopping realization when faced with a panic-stopping driver.
Why should the youth disregard the stop sign place at homosexuality anymore than they should disregard the other warning signs?
Well, society has had self-placed, incorrect restriction before. The arguments against certain behaviors were specious. Prohibitive behavior was surrounded by overkill. I grew up with statements such as try it once and you'll be hooked for life rather than statements more akin to that it is better not to experiment because even one episode contains some degree of harm and it can and often does lead to a habit that can be and often is very difficult to break.
Youths say to each other, "Go ahead. It won't kill you." Some malignant cancers can take decades to kill. A child wouldn't know it on day one without being told by a rightly trusted source. Is homosexuality fatal? I understand that the book is dealing on the mundane, "scientific" level. Does an old homosexual finally die of "old age" or the cumulative effect of homosexual behavior and bent? It's a spiritual point that the testers of science can't answer from within their limited language. I won't press the issue here, even though I do advocate digging in at truth and not just closer to it. There does have to be bridging language constructed, and what I'm doing here is putting out a bridge the entrance to which is placed such that no ground must be retaken after the treatment of "Unwanted" homosexual attraction has been re-accepted in the main. I'm not interested in fighting a new war after that over just homosexual attraction. My point is that no one shouldn't be lead to falsely imagine that he or she wants it in the first place. Focusing upon and emphasizing "Unwanted" may appear the expedient thing, but it is not. It may take away some of the perceived ammunition of those who would fault a parent for removing a splinter from his or her child's foot even when no anesthetic is available. That though should not be conceded to them as any valid ammunition at all. Such false bullets should be given credibility in the first place, shouldn't even be allowed to leave the homosexual Pied Piper's non-gun.
NARTH RESPONDS TO THE RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE OF DR. GEORGE REKERS
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.
NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made,and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.
At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH.
NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.
The issue is over whether change is possible. If change is not possible, then don't attempt to break habits. Don't become a new person. If you steal, continue. If you lie, continue. If you do anything that you want to stop doing, don't attempt to stop. Don't stop. Continue with whatever it is you don't want because you have no choice. You are locked into whatever you've done. You are damned to repeat whatever things you've done.
Some may object that these things are not "genetic" and that homosexuality is genetic. However, lying and stealing and all other things are genetically allowed or they wouldn't happen. That's consistent with the "science."
Have you ever changed?
- Technorati Tags: 1607916010, 978-1607916017, A. Dean Byrd, abrogation, adults, ammunition, anesthetic, answers, behavior, brainwashed, bridging language, children, Christian counselors, Christianity, church leaders, clerical leaders, concessions, countervailing, credibility, damaging, dangerous, deprogram, detrimental, episode, Esly Regina Carvalho, expedient, experiment, faith, false advertising, false bullets, forcing therapy, full recovery, genetics, George A. Rekers, God, grandparents, habit, handbook, harm, harmful, healing, hedonists, Hindu priestesses, Hindu priests, history, homosexual, homosexual attraction, homosexuality, hooked, ideological bandwagon, infallible, It won't kill you, Janelle Hallman, Jewish rabbis, Joseph Nicolosi, Julie Harren Hamilton, Kimberly Barnett Oram, lay counselors, lay religious leaders, libertines, logical conclusion, malignant cancers, Mary Beth Patton, mental challenges, Mike Rosebush, ministry, mundane, Muslim clerics, mutable, narrow way, NARTH, overkill, panic, parental guidance, parents, pastors, peer pressure, Philip J. Henry, Pied Piper, prohibitive behavior, proselytizing, realization, refutation, religious leaders, risky, same-sex attraction , science, scientific, scientists, self-destruct, specious, spiritual, stop sign, testers, therapy, trained up, treatment, trusted source, truth, unnecessary, unwanted homosexual attractions, valid ammunition, vice, Xulon Press, youth
Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.