Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Alan Chambers: gays not responsible for gas prices / air quality.

Being the discriminating connoisseur of anti-gay rhetoric that I am, I recently discovered a post that Alan Chambers has up on his blog, linking to an article he has penned for the Orlando Sentinel called: “You choose: Save gas or your life.”

It’s actually more of a glorified letter to the editor, and to be fair, I found it perfectly well written and articulately expressive, but it had nothing to do with gay, ex-gay, homoSEXual, or even the “culture war” --which is what I was expecting.

Fortunately though, it wasn’t until I was nearly through carefully-reading the brief article that I realized this. At which point I noticed that there were some thirty-odd comments to the story, which immediately drew my curiosity.

Two things.

First, it’s a story in itself that he’s not making the "evil gay agenda" a story. A modest one, but a story. But that’s not the story.

Second, I don’t normally go the gratuitous route when it comes to picking on my anti-gay nemeses, such as when it comes to mithpellings, not the goodest of grammar, or any other host of easily make-funable-of.. ... ..things.

However, these comments are too profoundly entertaining not to share.

To get the full impact, click over and read the whole thing with the comments. It’s worth it.

For the lazy version:

An excerpt of the article itself, by Alan Chambers:

I drive an old Mercedes and have to use premium gas. At $4.23 a gallon (just filled up Monday), a tank is approaching $100 for me. The mornings have been overcast and seemingly cooler, so I decided to lose the air conditioner, opting for the fresh air that comes from rolling the windows down.

[short story shorter…]

So, I'm frustrated. Mad even. We are getting savaged at the pump and attempting to save a few dollars by putting the windows down while driving, which means breathing hazardous fumes and risking your health and the health of anyone riding with you.

And now a sampling of some of the merciless comments that followed (keeping in mind (at least as of this posting) none of which contain any mention of Chambers’ affiliation with Exodus):

(P.S. I don't think I've ever even seen this much anger directed toward him over at Ex-Gay Watch!)

-If I had this mans problems I believe I would stay at home and call my mama.

-Good god, what a drama queen this man is! His very -life- is in danger?

-Put this guy out of his misery! How would you like to have to work and live around this guy?

-my grandkids whine less than this guy.

-Where do you think your cars A/C gets its air from ya ****!

-I'm sure smoke from a cig inside another car was so overwhelming you nearly fainted…Are you the kind of guy that jogs behind a bus and gripes about the guy you ran past because he was smoking? What a sensitive fellow you are. It is obvious you will never get your nose in a real sweet spot. What a panzy.

-And here I thought it was going to be a legitimate opinion regarding the life or death choice to bike to work (on our dangerous and unfriendly roads)as so many news articles have advised, in order to save on gas.


*deep breath*


-...Knock Knock...
...Who's there?
...Real life...
...Go away, and don't come back until this wussy has seen his last sterile day...

-This guy is a nothing but a baby who need to be out of his misery!

-This guy whines like my 7 yr old niece.

-this guys car puts out more pollution than 50 smokers and he is complaining

-My God, how did I ever survive as a child? My dads car had 4/40 AC, no seat belts, a steel dash board, and he smoked a cigar.

-Agreed - I too thought it was about alternative transportation. After listening to all this whining I think I will slit my wrists.

-Oh my goodness! Your Mercedes hangs around your neck like an anchor now that premium gas is so expensive? […] In short, I believe you to be the shining example of the continued softening and "whimpification" of our society. Cowboy up, softie!

-Here's a thought for this JERK...TOUGH! Other people have rights just like you! You can complain when they jump in your mercedes and light up...until then…

-I save gas by riding my bicycle to work along side of everything this whiney beotch was nearly killed by.

-Know what the differrence is between a Mercedes and a porcupine???

A porcupine has the pr i c k s on the outside.

-Wow. No, I mean, WOW. What a Mo!! Here's a thought. Get off your fat **** and walk or bike to work.

Shifting gears now..

So this is what comes to mind for me. Depending on which version of the Bible you use, one of the verses used to condemn us [we homosexuals (but usually only we male homosexuals)] as sinful, is 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV):

9) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

…and one of the versions of that Bible verse includes the following (KJV):

9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Forget the “homosexual” part for now, the important part is that we’re being condemned by the same verse that condemns the "effeminate" part. But I don’t mean "effeminate" in the "effeminate acting" way.

I mean to use the term "effeminate" in the spineless, lily-livered, morally-flimsy, luke-warm, cowardice, Biblical sense. In the way that this article from the Purple Pew elucidates:

Earlier I had written my understanding of “nor effeminate” based on the Matthewe’s Bible of 1549, the Geneva Bible of 1560 and Webster’s dictionary, which states a "weakness marked by excessive refinement"; therefore, the word effeminate here has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Wesley’s commentary on “nor the effeminate” in I Corinthians (6:9) is this: “Nor the effeminate - who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship. But how is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolators and sodomites!” (a)

See, an effeminate person - whether male or female - is spiritually lazy and morally weak - usually due to an excessive lifestyle of luxury and/or pleasure. They do not take up their cross to follow Christ in word, deed, or in truth.

In that context, Chambers’ article, and as 'verified' by (and yes, I'm using the term loosely) the responses to it, seems to exemplify the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:9, that the "effeminate [shall not inherit the kingdom of God]."

But as Exodus likes to put it:

In 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul gives a list of all kinds of sinners that will not inherit the kingdom of God, including those that practice homosexuality. But he goes on to say, "and that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Some Corinthian Christians had formerly been homosexuals, but now were counted among the saints. Now, that's good news indeed!

Which is an even MORE perfect example of the spineless, lily-livered, morally-flimsy, luke-warm, cowardly, AKA "effeminate" behavior -- of the staff at Exodus International, most notably its president, Alan Chambers -- that the Bible condemns.

Let's break it down:

In 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul gives a list of all kinds of sinners that will not inherit the kingdom of God, including those that practice homosexuality.

Except we’re not talking about "practicing homosexuality," we’re talking about homosexuality as in same-gender attraction ITSELF -- as in the HUMAN SEXUALITY of same gender attraction.

Some Corinthian Christians had formerly been homosexuals, but now were counted among the saints.

Well that’s lovely, but "counted among the saints" doesn’t mean the same thing as "became heterosexual," which is what you imply, but fail to clarify.

In addition, by highlighting the ever ambiguous "and that is what some of you were" portion of the Corinthians verse, and in light of Exodus' political motives and connections with Focus on the Family, such calculated obfuscation is clearly subtext meant to portray to the general public that same-gender attraction -- in and of itself -- is a choice.
So you get the point. And this kind of code-speak is typical of the anti-gay industry crowd.

Alan Chambers and the Exodus International staff et al, should get over their own “effeminacy” moral flimsitude before condemning the rest of us with the same Biblical verse that rightly condemns themselves - IN THEIR USE OF IT.


Theo said...

"Do you not know that the WICKED will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do NOT be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10; emphasis mine).

"Homosexual offenders" here comes from the word Greek word "arsenokoite," meaning "homosexual." St. Paul the Apostle is saying homosexuality is a vice excluding its practitioners from the kingdom of God.

St. Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament, one of them being "arsenokoite." The coined terms do not, because they are original, change the context of the verses they appear in. Nor is it remarkable St. Paul would have coined "arsenokoite," considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint:

"meta ARSENOS ou koimethese KOITEN gyniakos" (Leviticus 18:22; Septuagint).

"hos an koimethe meta ARSENOS KOITEN gynaikos" (Leviticus 20:13; Septuagint).

In other words, when St. Paul adopted the term "arsenokoite," he took it directly from the Levitical passages - in the Greek translation - forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer. Though the term is unique to St. Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.

As for the claim by homosexual activists that the term applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. "Arsene," as mentioned earlier, appears a few times in the New Testament, always referring to "male." "Koite" appears twice in the New Testament, and means "bed" used in a sexual connotation:

"Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL IMMORALITY [koite] and debauchery" (Romans 13:13)

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage BED [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4)

The two words combined, as St. Paul used them, put "male" and "bed" together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make "arsenokoite."

Emproph said...

Ok, but what's your point?

Theo said...

Simply to point out the obvious Emproph, and that’s that 1 Corinthians 6: 9 – 10 is a clear-cut condemnation of homosexuality.

BTW, when are you going to change the absurd labeling of your blog? Or are you unaware of how ignorant it shows you to be?

Emproph said...

"BTW, when are you going to change the absurd labeling of your blog? Or are you unaware of how ignorant it shows you to be?"

I'm not the one who's claiming a death threat to be the basis of my religion.

Scott said...

I enjoyed reading that - Mr. Chambers sure is one hilarious individual, when you see how truly nutty he is.

PS: Sorry about your current pest problem. Nothing destroys them quicker than truth, and a good sense of humour - which they REALLY hate.

Ken said...

Emproph, Theo is a plagiarist! He copied his entire comment off the Stonewall Revisited site written by Joe Dallas - Responding to Pro-Gay Theology!

Theo, you sir are a fraud! Instead of researching for yourself (like most honest people do) you instead copied and pasted other people's work and claimed it as your own! YOU ARE A FRAUD!!

Emproph, I know you and him have had long discussions over at Wayne's Blog. So I wanted to let you know I would not trust anything he says from this point on. If he is dishonest enough to steal someone elses work he is not to be trusted further in any way shape or form. One begins to wonder whom else he has stolen from.

Has stealing become a new Christian Virtue Theo?

Theo said...

Nor am I Emproph. Isn't that the very point. The point, in fact, that you''re avoiding.

And for the record, nothing was "stolen." Facts are facts, and they can be found elsewhere. People like Ken like use such accusations as smokescreens instead of dealing with the actual arguments. I've never actually been to "Stonewall Revisited," but am familiar with Mr. Dallas. I even compared several articles between him, the late-Greg Bahnsen, and book by James R. White, and information from a website run by Greek New Testament scholars. Guess what? The facts are statements are similar.

Deal with the argument Ken. The same facts appear in the saw way because they are the same facts. Deal with them.

Ken said...

Theo- And for the record, nothing was "stolen."

That all depends on "interpretation" doesn't it? Interpretation. Interpretation. Interpretation.

Anyone familiar with the web, and blogging, know they MUST always give credit where credit is due. You have not done so here Theo. That is dishonest. It is NOT your work! You must give links and give credit to whom you have found your resources. Quoting here and there is one thing but to copy/paste entire paragraphs is very dishonest.

I am not surprised by this tho. Many of your ilk lie about your actions daily and some even defend them as being, "the end justify the means."

No debating with you is needed Theo. And it is no smoke screen either. I and many others are sick of the hypocrisy the Christian Right regurgitates on a regular bases and your "truth" that you so widely demand of others to follow to the letter. The "truth" you proclaim has done nothing but cause countless atheists, move people further away from Christ, and have wrecked peoples lives all in the sake of "creating man in YOUR own image".

Praise Jesus that I have been spared! And I say this from the heart. Because I see all this horror Christians have done to others all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And its sad. Truly sad.

In closing, I don't hate you. While we disagree, as a fellow Christian and follower of Jesus Christ I am commanded to love.

John: 13:34 - I give you a new commandment: that you should love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too should love one another.

I wish you well brother.


Theo said...

For the record Ken, I am not "right-wing," not a "conservative," and really not all that politically involved.

I wish you well too sir!

Emproph said...

Scott / Ken, thank you.
Theo, I don’t mind if you copy and paste something from somewhere, but it’s customary to attribute your sources - out of respect for the person you’re quoting from, and out of respect for the people you are communicating with.

Ken was right in his observation of your cut and paste without attribution.

You had no business in not only justifying it as some sort of nebulous notion of “Facts are facts, and they can be found elsewhere,” but then also blaming Ken for merely observing as much:

“People like Ken like use such accusations as smokescreens instead of dealing with the actual arguments.”

And the "actual argument" is whether or not the Bible is truly true, which as of yet, is so far ongoing.
I really don't think it's fair to argue the exegesis with someone unless you both agree on the authenticity of the texts to begin with. So even if you’re going to copy and paste bible text and exegesis (and hopefully attribute sources!), at least then also take the time to show/share -- via personal discussion -- how that exemplifies how you feel.

I agree, facts are facts, and the information is out there. But whether or not you meant to “steal” that information and portray it as your own, the important part is why you feel this information is so important.

I’m not saying it’s not important. But I realize that it’s important to you. But I also have yet to truly understand why.

Which is why I continue to ask, how can something with no victim be a crime in the determination of morality / sin?
Furthermore, you not only dismissed the entire point of the original post, via nature of your copy and paste first post, you confirmed it.

You used the very litany of 1 Corinthians “sins” -- that also include “effeminacy” AKA “moral softness” -- to condemn gays exclusively among the group (namely me for condemning the hypocritical observation of that).

At least that’s the way I took it.

Which makes you a reviler as well (also inculded in 1 Corinthians). And also a “non inheritable ‘kingdom of God’ sin.”

And your response? Paraphrased:

“How dare you point out that I am morally equal to you! In fact, look over here at this Joe Dallas guy (of course I won’t mention, or hyperlink to the fact that he’s (divorced and remarried due to adulterous affair on his part because as long as he says he’s ex-gay, I can continue blaming gay people for choosing to be gay.)

Yes, I’m being flip, but that’s really the way it comes across Theo when you -- and others for that matter -- just copy and past without taking the time to engage the rest of us, and let us know just why and how you feel the way you do.

For the record, I’m a reviler too Theo, and morally “soft” at times, if not often times, BUT I RECOGNIZE THIS AS MORAL FAILING ON MY PART - including when I am judging the moral flimsitude of others.

Which, why, for me, I consider unilateralism to be the 'objective' truth. Normally, or at least practically expressed in human form, as the Golden Rule. When I say this, it’s not about quantity OR quality of “good,” it’s always about the maximization of the quantity OF the quality of good.

There’s no dilemma in that sense, the life-challenge in balancing the two is constant. But it’s my understanding that this is the entire purpose for our time on Earth, to maximize our ability to recognize the order of importance, especially when making decisions. And ultimately, aren’t all decisions supposed to be based on balancing of quantity of good vs. quality of good - in the name of the maximization of the quantity of the quality of good?

And if you want to get technical about it, making decisions could be said to be creation itself. A decision ensures that one reality will come true, or that a certain path of realities will come true, to the chagrin of an infinite number of other possible realities that could have come true, had just another decision been made.

To that extent, it could be said that we are co-creators with God, but only in the sense that we have been given the power to decide certain angles and directions of it…but I digress.
It is this inability to make the hard decision to be clear in their speech (and thus the mentality behind that speech) that I accuse Exodus leaders of, Joe Dallas included.

Whether it be their claims that “change is possible,” which implies that heterosexuality is possible, yet really means that celibacy is possible, or whether it be with their endorsement of divorced and remarried Joe Dallas (whom Biblically speaking, is an unrepentant adulterer), without explaining HOW he’s not an unrepentant adulterer. And same with the Leviticus “we must be put to death” 20:13 verse. If you want to make the exegetical connection between that and the New Testament, so be it. but good god man, at LEAST condemn the “put to death” part while doing so! And as you’ve already noted, that CAN be done, even exegetically.

What am I to think of those who don’t make that effort, knowing full well that they could choose to do so?