posted
Oh no! Not a big debate over the sinfulness of homosexuality! Seriously though, I appreciate (and agree with) much of your post, Nathan. I think there are certainly things more horrific than very strict rules at a college. But what bothers me most is that this simulated sheltering is not going to do these young people any favors when they get out into the world. I am Christian but I believe in learning much about the world in order to discern what is and is not morally or spiritually correct. It is the "know thy enemy" idea. This school kills any hope of students making a decision to follow Christ on their own. Morality and religion are imposed on students and the they are sheltered from "evil" rather than deciding for themselves to live a life of faith despite the evils of the world.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this strikes quite a chord with me. I have just lived through the experience of having my adolescent child in a psychiatric hospital for nine days. The description of the school rules is disturbingly similar to the hospital rules. No contact with the opposite sex. No outside influences. Two 10 minute phone calls per day. No forming of relationships with other patients, even of the same gender, because it can interfere with individual treatment goals. Extreme surveillance. Very very strict rules about reading material and movies and music.
Even knowing they were necessary, I had a hard time with the conditions in this program. Any parent would, I think. And I concluded (many times) that this program was what this child needed at this moment. It was what this child needed to stay safe and return to health. So what are the parents protecting the college students from? What is the danger? Are the students a danger to themselves -- in the worldview of these families? In the worldview of these students? I am sad.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was mentioned in Leviticus, and in Deuteronomy for that matter. In these verses, it was equated with bestiality. (Yes, there is a reason every Christian jumps to that particular argument when asked about ammending the marriage ammendment.)
Paul also called it 'a disgusting and deplorable' sin (NLT), and equated it with 'the burning disease'. It was in one of the epistles... If you have a concordence look it up... I'm tired, and after all, you're the one going to hell if you disagree with me. (I kid, of course.)
I hate forums. Whenever you're deliberatley obtuse or fescetious nobody notices. It's annoying to have to use so many sets of parenthesis.
Anyway, I wish this didn't have to become a discussion on homosexuality... I kind of figured somebody would ask me about it... People often do when you're conservative and they're liberal, or you're liberal while your conservative... Or if your disagreeing with anything they say, regardless of political party. Homosexuality and Abortion are hot topics... It's too bad. I'm starting to feel like I'm in a Christian chat-room.
quote: Nathan, I find myself really enjoying how the style of your posts complements the substance.
Why, thank you. I wouldn't have it any other way.
And, just one more thing off-topic: Anybody's bible can beat up someone elses Bible. I find that it's an art, really... I've met many Van Goughs.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
At any rate, I'll look up the exact New Testament verses when I feel like going out to my car to get my Bible out of my backpack. Right now, I am lazy. And tired.
posted
Whether or not you agree with Nathan's interpretation of the Bible isn't germane to the question he was answering. He was asked asked to share his beliefs on the sinfullness of homosexuality. He did so.
It's not surprising at all that not everybody agrees with him.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't normally say anything about typos (Davidson's law and all), but this one just had me chuckling:
quote:the soy-sauce spills out and is dilluded in the glass... This is redemtion in my opinion.
I'm giving that 1/2 points for Freudian slipperiness as a variant of "deluded" but noting that it's close enough to "diluted" to be intelligible.
At any rate, I do hope this doesn't turn into yet another discussion of homosexuality. That's not even close to being central as a topic here.
Sharpie, my hypothesis about protecting students from themselves (their base desires) was exactly along the lines of what you were wondering. If you believe that your immortal soul is in danger from certain thoughts and actions, it is not all that unreasonable to react to the threat by seeking environments and rules that supply the discipline that may be lacking.
I even imagine the theory behind the rules on sexuality at PCC to run along the lines of helping young people to gain mastery over their weak selves so that when they leave they already have the habits of control. Such learned repression doesn't happen over night. Four years in a strict community may be just enough time, they hope.
In my opinion, focusing on one teaching that might lead to the conclusion that thinking about sex is a deadly sin is a mistake. Jesus didn't spend his ministry railing against people's sexual behavior. He did talk a lot about attitudes, though.
It's sort of an obvious observation that those who work so hard to avoid sex are ruled by it just as much as those who seek it constantly. It is still obsessing about sex.
One wonders what Jesus, or Paul for that matter, would say about it.
But let's not forget that people have been successfully living under various gender separation rules (religiously motivated and otherwise) for a long, long time. Is this place considered "whacky" because it's outside the norm for Christianity or because it's at the fringe of American society? Or is it bad because the people attending this school are young and might be missing out on something?
As others have said, the biggest problem is if the administration is not being up front about the schools lack of accreditation. They are, afterall, selling a product and if that product does not meet "standards" they either should be charging a lot less for it, and letting their clients know that it doesn't do everything that they might expect.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see this as an Old Testament/New Testament view going on here. The school seems to be more worried about living to the Old Testament standards of LAW versus most of us here who are more New Testament followers, worried about living to the standards of the Spirit. How this school can be seen as the "Spirit" of Christ confuses us. How it is seen as an attempt at the LAW of Moses, short of the dietary requirments, is obvious.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but you do spend something like 6 months getting ready for that mission, don't you? Are the rules in place during that time?
It depends, and no.
I didn't prepare much, but I should have prepared more. And the rules about no hugging members of the opposite sex DEFINITELY do not apply until you're actually a missionary.
Backstabbing is a big deal, but so are things like date rape. I wonder if the founders of the school decided to take their chances with the lesser evil in hopes of lowering the incidence of the greater?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Backstabbing is a big deal, but so are things like date rape. I wonder if the founders of the school decided to take their chances with the lesser evil in hopes of lowering the incidence of the greater?
I'm wondering whether a) the incidence of date rape is actually lowered by this and b) whether this justification could be used to require women to wear burkas.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how little most students probably date at all considering dating is forbidden, I would reckon that yes, it does lower the incidence of date rape.
I don't see how b) is even a question. Of course it could, but I don't see how that matters.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How did this thread swing in this direction? I made the comment of Jesus not making Eye Babies merely in jest. I was not trying to make any sort of moral statement on whether Jesus had a love life, whether sex before marriage is ok, or even less "Homosexuality: good/bad?."
Dag: The rules are there for you to know, you go to a training center to prepare to be a missionary 3 weeks - 3 months depending on where you are going.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, don't be disingenuous or twist my words. I wasn't suggesting burkas.
In terms of backstabbing, isn't that what omerta was created to prevent? Anyone else a little uncomfortable about expecting omerta?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, kat was supposing possible motivations for Pensacola, not saying those motivations were necessarily reasonable, and especially not saying similar justifications were always reasonable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I can't imagine the prevention of date rape being one of Pensacola's primary concerns in this situation. I think they're afraid that people might touch each other, get "inflamed," and strip each other naked on the Quad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, I didn't say Nate didn't have a few good points, did I? I was just saying the level of repression was a lot HIGHER at that college than in this thread.
I also wasn't the one calling these horror stories about that college.
I find their beliefs horrible, and feel they would cause more problems than they would solve, but as I don't intend to attend Pencacola ( or pay for anyone else to, ever! ) it doesn't really matter to me either.
Lots of people sleep around more than is healthy too, but I don't have the right to stop them from doing it....nor would I want the power to be able to stop them even if was offered to me.
Either extreme is harmful, IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph, I didn't say Nate didn't have a few good points, did I? I was just saying the level of repression was a lot HIGHER at that college than in this thread. [Big Grin]
Actually, it did look like you were saying that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I thought that he was pointing out the irony of people were being uptight about how uptight others are.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
