Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Satan Was A Breech Birth

Jim Burroway

January 3rd, 2013

This guy claims he was cured of the gay. Yeah, right. When demons fly out of my butt…

 

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Shofixti
January 3rd, 2013 | LINK

Yeah, saw this a few days ago.
Ludicrous.
And sad.

Manheart
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

Bizarre and sad. I pity the girl who agrees to marry him.

iDavid
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

That guy is possessed, it’s obvious from his eyes. It’s unfortunate he let himself go this far. Religion can only exacerbate his problems.
He is a classic sex addict ex gay like Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas, they rubber band to the other end of the spectrum expecting the opposing extremism to work, which is not possible, suffering is still daily.
I wish him good counsel comes along and helps him truly rehab, he deserves to have a happy guilt free life.

Kaleo
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

How sad.

Snowman
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

It seems like it would be easier to find a church that accepts people for who they are, than to try to deny one’s own nature for the sake of Fundamentalist dogma.

johnson
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

Tragic. He’s either severely Mentally Ill or really seeking attention–either way, he’s a train wreck.

Robert
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

How exactly does one become a Porn Star that no one knows or remembers having ever seen or heard about? His own admissions in other reports state he did a sex video with some friends, real low rent stuff. He’s giving real porn stars a bad name.

Timothy Kincaid
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

To the best of my knowledge, neither Alan Chambers nor Randy Thomas are sex addicts.

IDavid
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

I think Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers are actually multi-addicted to sex love relationship and religion, with the underlying addiction to ridding themselves of homosexuality, the basic corrupted thinking which all their other addictions are adjoined.
Sexual addiction is classically described as “unable to manage sexual behavior”. Ex-gay men that I have read about in general have this problem and act out physically in different ways i.e. porn cruising bar pickups bathhouses or fantasy within the mind …. Either way it is an obsession with sexual thoughts at the onset, sometimes being acted out.
Sex addiction can be limited to thoughts only, as currently in Alan’s case a daily fight. He calls it “temptation”.
Randy is the same way, both having highly fueled sexual pasts they wanted to manage but couldn’t. They call it “the gay lifestyle”.
Hence similar to a twelve step programs for recovering alcoholics, Exodus was designed for addict’s support of “unwanted” and unmanageable out of control sexual desires that plague the mind. AA says an alcoholic is never cured. Similarly, homosexual thoughts don’t go away in the Exodus model.

One could say both Randy and Alan are also addicted to religion. They are obsessed with religious dogma in hopes of curing the incurable, when the real problem simply has to do with acceptance of what is, which they could classify as their greatest fear as it equates with going to “hell”, a fantasy place of eternal torture but very real in their minds.

Addictions always steer the victim away from the underlying issue, which for them is accepting they are full blown homosexuals and all aspects of that are fine.
Both of them are still in the grips of addiction, compulsively thinking “god” Jesus celibacy and str8 marriage is “the cure” at one end of the addict spectrum, while still in the throws of homosexual thoughts of sexual pleasure, the other end of the addict spectrum. Both polarized both obsessive compulsive, both not addressing the real issues. Still addicted, still lost. Still gay. Still looking “over there” for the answer. Still multi-addicted to these many temporary anesthetics that do not heal the issue, insulating their recognition of themselves by adjoining with people who think the same. Still hurting others in the process which is classic addictive behavior i.e. the gay community and exexgays.
No one is healed in the Exodus model because it is part of the addiction itself, to bind together in denial and support, to look elsewhere for the problem and cure and above all else, don’t face the problem itself. It is an anchor, a mother ship calling sweetly “come children, lets deny our sexual orientation together and find strength”, cementing the addictive cycle itself, holding only hope and no cure.
This is why Exodus will eventually disappear when this is fully recognized.
Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers head the organization. Hence, addicts.

Priya Lynn
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

Great analysis Idavid.

Michael C
January 4th, 2013 | LINK

I don’t think that allowing oneself to be emotionally oppressed by social gender stereotypes is a sign of any particular form of addiction.

iDavid
January 5th, 2013 | LINK

Thanks Priya. Good to see you and Happy New Year.
Micheal C, I would agree with you in certain cases. These I don’t see as those cases.

octobercountry
January 5th, 2013 | LINK

IDavid, I believe you meant to type “throes,”—but I have to say your analysis makes a good deal of sense.

iDavid
January 5th, 2013 | LINK

Octobercountry, thx for that correction, duly noted.
Timothy, my comment was in response to yours. Any thoughts?

Timothy Kincaid
January 6th, 2013 | LINK

IDavid,

I know Alan and Randy. I don’t recognize either of them in your description.

I think perhaps you have determined what ex-gays “are like” based on ex-gay men you have read about and, identifying Alan and Randy as such, you’ve ascribed to them the characteristics that you are sure all ex-gays must possess.

But stereotypes – whether or not useful – do not accurately describe individuals.

IDavid
January 6th, 2013 | LINK

Through blog and media Chambers and Thomas have been very transparent through the years about their out of control sex fueled pasts that had to be “overcome”. They do fit an addiction model.
I am not trying to throw stones. I would like nothing more than to see them heal with Christ about practicing natural gay sex and intimacy making it a moot issue. They deserve to have both. My observations are purely clinical and can be taken to help or hurt but I see them both are severely compromised.

Addiction starts with a conflict in the mind, usually perceived as unresolvable, a repetitive compulsive thought one can’t control. It becomes obsessive. That is the primary addiction. Then the anesthetics come in, the secondary addiction, to quell the painful thoughts. Drugs sex religion scrubbing floors alcohol, there are many medications/anesthetics. And that’s it, they are stuck in this addictive cycle of unresolve, pain/anesthetics pain/ anesthetics playing the tape over and over in their minds.

This unresolved mental conflictive addictive cycle is strong and present in Randy and Alan’s mind’s today, as they both still consummately mentally obsess over gay sex. They teach about it, talk about it, work in it, write about it, do it in their minds, reject it, have groups about it monitor it, try to banish “temptation” of gay sex etc. It’s an ongoing merry go round of sexual malaise holding up falsity for truth. The world of rational thought is the enemy so they have isolated themselves with their own. Hence the sexual addiction is still present though the anesthetics have shifted from sexual encounters to religion, at least as far as we know. Celibacy itself can be a reaction to addiction as a “reasonable” response. If you are majorly confused and conflicted sexually, it would make sense.

Randy and Alan may have traded sex for religion or a combination of both as an anesthetic, but the basic problem still persists. This primary mental addiction is still so strong that their inner hatred of it’s effects have infected the world. The outer hate they receive from people mirrors the inner hate they emit. You get what you give. So they live a life of negative excitement, of which they probably grew up with in their households. They love to stir up people negatively, which they do in spades, probably to get back at their parents for doing similarly to them, not being perfect, and is part of their addictive comfort zone. Negative excitement capitalizes on being unreasonable, not listening, getting away with things, feeling in control, which they desire the most because control is what they are trying to reinstate, and feeds the addiction because someone said they are “right” because they are upholding religious law. The Bible is rife with erroneous “law”. Even Jesus can’t get through that barricade without our help.

Could it be Timothy, that you are projecting a protective device when you say you know these two yet disagree about their activities, thereby possibly “enabling” the harmful effects to continue?

I do hope someday they will see the real issue they are wrestling with as concrete, and throw a stick of dynamite into it. Heaven will certainly rejoice that day.

iDavid
January 6th, 2013 | LINK

PS Maybe you have observations you could share about them that perhaps would be enlightening.

Jim Burroway
January 7th, 2013 | LINK

Through blog and media Chambers and Thomas have been very transparent through the years about their out of control sex fueled pasts that had to be “overcome”.

Can you please provide appropriate links? I can say for certain that Chambers has never talked about years of “out of control sex fueled pasts.” He entered an Exodus program at a very young age, I think at around nineteen or so if I remember correctly. Your characterization has never been part of his message.

As for Thomas, he acknowledges being quite the party animal in his much younger days. With that, he acknowledges drug use. His descriptions appear to be on par with quite a lot of twenty-something partiers with more energy and hormones than sense. He had sex. He had boyfriends. But I don’t recall anything about “sex fueled pasts.” And I don’t see anything that rises to the level of “addiction” — chemical, sexual, or otherwise.

That’s not to say that this is an uncommon portrayal among many people in the ex-gay movement, but it is far from universal. And as near as I can tell, it doesn’t apply to Chambers or Thomas, although in Thomas’s case I’ll let him speak for himself.

Of course, I disagree strongly with Chambers and Thomas on a whole host of issues. But I’m always skeptical of armchair diagnoses by non-professionals of other who they’ve never met. I’m skeptical when ex-gay proponents presume to diagnose me, and I’m equally skeptical whenever anyone else who doesn’t know someone presumes to do the same in the other direction.

IDavid
January 8th, 2013 | LINK

Jim, Yes docs/links will be forthcoming. Back to back appointments here, will respond asap.

IDavid
January 10th, 2013 | LINK

Hi Jim,

I understand your concerns. I think it’s very important to realize just what religious addiction is as it is quite prevelant among us. Here are a few links about religious addiction, the basics of which cover addiction in general i.e. sex addiction.

http://www.spiritualabuse.com/?page_id=45
http://www.spiritualabuse.com/?page_id=46
http://www.spiritualabuse.com/?page_id=50

Here is a transcript from a CNN interview with Alan Chambers and Dr. Drew Pinsky. Dr. Drew, is an American board-certified internist, addiction medicine specialist. The highlights are below.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/15/ddhln.01.html

PINSKY: I read a biography. I don`t know if this is from you or where it came from, but it talked about you having been sexually abused as a child.

CHAMBERS: That was part of my experience. When I was 9 or 10, there was a neighbor boy —

PINSKY: So, sexual abuse, was that repeated, was it chronic?

CHAMBERS: It was once. One episode in time.

PINSKY: And then you began acting out with males your own age later?

CHAMBERS: Yes. Being sexually abused didn`t make me gay, but it certainly taught me things about sex. And so for me, looking for love, affirmation, acceptance from men, I realized I could get it in a sexual way.

————————————–

“Acting out” is a classical term used by sexual addiction specialists to explain behavioral characteristics of the secondary degree of sexual addiction, the medication/anesthetic phase. Dr. Drew is a seasoned addiction specialist and I don’t believe he would be throwing terms like this around unless he was certain they were accurate. And like Alan, someone who has been sexually abused also has a much higher likely hood of sexually “acting out” than not.

A little more about Alan. Alan talks about his “freak out” at a young age at finding out he was attracted to men, yet was taught by religion that such was outside his religious parameters. That is the onset of the base conflict on which his whole life is built. I see this as starting the ongoing addictive rift of natural good man vs. phantom fear man to diminish natural gay man within the mind, which is impossible. However, exgays keep picking at it, fighting within about it compulsively/addictively. One is true and one is false and only the false can go away completely. At one point in the interview Alan says:

CHAMBERS: No, but I believe that the bible is very clear. I`m a Christian, and so everything that I do, I live my life through the filter of my faith, and not through the filter of my sexuality.

The religious filter that he lives through regarding sexuality is the phantom fear man erroneously dictated in Biblical passages chapter and verse. Hence the basis for his neurosis and his life long addiction to “fixing” the ill perceived problem.

The reason this life long conflict could be considered Alan’s primary addiction is because of the ongoing compulsive obsession to win the fight against his inner natural male. He has constructed unnaturally in his mind, a phantom fear man, who is constantly throwing a huge boa constrictor around natural good gay man, trying to squeeze the life force out of him. In essence, kill him. Right now he has the two mixed up. He thinks the gay natural good man is evil, and looks at the destructive phantom fear man straight wannabe as the good Christian man. A total cross wire. This has set him into his primary addictive conflict that is at the bottom of all the rest. Hence no sex with his wife for nine months after marriage and no biological kids of his own. The marriage is built on the fear phantom’s “shoulds”, instead of natural gay man’s authentic wants and needs. Not to mention gay kids hanging themselves in their bedrooms at the example of his default direct. Not quite a straight man’s mock-up as we all well know.

The second level of addiction strikes when the victim goes into a malaise of not being able to resolve the addictive fight problem, between “good and evil” in this case, and acts out to quell/medicate the problem’s negative effects. This malaise or boredom period is also prevelant right before acting out with drugs sex etc for some. That very point is where one can stop and heal if they choose, because the problem is present and wants anesthetics. The cure is to sit right there and deal with the base problem, not dial up the next drug.

Alan chose the difficult no relief route. He took the neurotic psychotic road by “acting out” with men, he took an erroneous religious path landing him with a woman, Randy became celibate, all at the hands of Phantom fear man, which did nothing for the problem except massage it more. They are both still in the “acting out” and denial phase with religion as the secondary addiction and the fight thoughts as the primary.
Alan’s whole life is pure “acting out” of that wound he never felt he could resolve. The wife the kids the whole thing. He can’t connect at all levels with his wife fully, hence constant temptations to be with men who could fulfill him on all levels of a marriage. Anyone who is truly in love and happy in a relationship does not have these thoughts of sex with men constantly at their heels as a rule, if ever. His whole life is built on that one argument between those unresolved polar opposite confused selves. Hence look at the fallout Exodus has done, not to mention the confusing lie of a life he is leading in himself.

I believe putting a name to Alan Randy and the exgay disease is good, because looking at a stone cold addict, which I believe Alan and Randy are, is different from looking at someone who is simply confused and easily rectified. And to know someone is an addict can restrict some people from giving them the time of day, which could be very helpful to gay kids and the public in general.
Randy Alan and Exodus probably don’t even know what they are addicted to or that they are addicted at all, which is denial at its most complete. Religio-sex addicts in denial are invariably unreachable. So this label, religio-sex addict, could throw a new light on how one goes about reacting to ex gays in general.
It really is like talking to a brick wall cemented with neurotic lies by this false phantom fear man, with a plethora of addictive excuses shielding the wrongly perceived unsolvable basic problem. No one wants to deal with a problem they can’t fix when they have tried relentlessly to do so, and that is the thinking that keeps all the religio sexual addicts on their path of sheer destruction to themselves and the world around them. The answer to the problem is simple, though when you’re “in it”, it can be the biggest blind spot of a lifetime.

I am wondering if you guys have ever thought in all your research, whether the entire exgay fakery and all it’s tentacles, is an addiction unto itself to sex and religion.

RobertS
January 15th, 2013 | LINK

I completely agree with this analysis iDavid. Very good. I would add that addicts in the denial stage are netorious liars, to themselves and to others. I see Alan comes off as very blurry and disengenuous in his interviews.

Tim and Jim, if you both know Alan, can you tell me why it took him nine months to have sex with his wife after marriage? I think his sex life should be an open book if he in fact says he’s “straight” or whatever he calls it these days. “Straight” with “attachments” maybe?

I would also like to hear your take on iDavid’s analysis as you seemed amiss to the possibility of Alan and Randy being sex and religious addicts.

Randy
January 16th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy and Jim, I appreciate your comments.

iDavid, as much fun as it is to read about how you know more about me than me … you seem myopic in your analysis.

And so… not me.

I did party … big time … from about 16 to 20 or so. I did quite a number of embarrassing things during those years. I was not a Christian, was not raised a Christian except nominally, and didn’t like Christians. My addiction was substance abuse (X, cocaine, pot, drinking.)

I never claimed to be a sex addict. After a couple of degrading experiences (mostly for drugs) I was, as a gay man, very against anonymous sex. Still am. Whether you agree with me about the larger issues or not … anonymous sex is not worthy of the transcendant treasure of you.

And I was out and proud about being gay… I never did and never have felt shame for my past behavior. Embarrassed over the time I tripped at a party, slid across the floor like a zamboni and knocked down some drag queens like bowling pins? Yes. Embarrassed for being thrown out of a straight strip club for yelling out *terrible* but well timed jokes … yes, that was very embarrassing. And a little dangerous.

No one had to guess where my interests lie.

I could be quite a jerk after 2 in the morning and neither Drag Queens or strip bar bouncers are people you want to tangle with in any way …

I did some really stupid, and sometimes illegal (drugs), crap but I never felt any cognitive dissonance about being gay before or after I decided to drop that label.

To be sure, I was not a virgin, but I kept my pants on far far more than not.

I did have an abusive partner at one point and I did struggle mightily with emotional dependency. However, I would not list sexual addiction among my frailties back then or since then. Also, and this is not said with any pride at all, I have not had sex with another person in 21 years.

And I am content regardless of what others say who think they know me more than I do.

I will admit to laughing, not in a mean-spirited way, at iDavid saying that Alan and I are addicted to religion. That’s completely off target.

And that’s all I should probably say about that. I usually don’t follow comment threads except on my own blog but Timothy and Jim, you got my email. I’d love to hear from you both about how you are doing.

Priya Lynn
January 16th, 2013 | LINK

Its hard to imagine another reason for a person to suppress their sexual orientation other than an addiction to religion.

Timothy Kincaid
January 16th, 2013 | LINK

It’s funny, really. When it comes to religion and what one does or does not believe about it, it’s how one behaves that impresses me, not what one asserts. If one becomes nasty and uncivil – whatever their position – that’s when I want nothing to do with what they are peddling.

You start ranting about abomination and evil sinners, then I have no use for your chosen deity. And when one starts calling believers crazy and addicted, that’s when I become quite certain that faith is beneficial – if for no other reason, religions tend to teach not to be aholes to each other.

Jim Burroway
January 16th, 2013 | LINK

Its hard to imagine another reason for a person to suppress their sexual orientation other than an addiction to religion.

Oh, so now we get to use imagination to come up with diagnose by laypersons for people they don’t know?

Gotcha.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

“religions tend to teach not to be aholes to each other.”.

Maybe some religions, but a whole lot of them teach the exact opposite.

“Oh, so now we get to use imagination to come up with diagnose by laypersons for people they don’t know?”.

It is impossible for anyone to diagnose anyone without using imagination to some degree.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

And I never called anyone crazy.

And to decide something must be beneficial just because someone said its practitioners aren’t mentally healthy is completely illogical. Someone saying a person is addicted to religion in no way establishes that religion is beneficial – at least not to a mature person.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

Addiction is a behavior that one no longer has the ability to refrain from which causes negative effects on a person’s health.

Clearly Randy and Alan cannot refrain from practicing religion, suppressing one’s sexuality causes stress and reduces levels of happiness. Even though they may claim they are happy on the whole they are by definition addicted to religion.

Jim confuses using imagination to come up with plausible reasons to suppress one’s sexuality with using imagination to make stuff up that has no connection to reality.

Jim Burroway
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

I would suggest that Priya Lynn has an addiction to getting the last word in and confuses that with winning an argument. Nothing you have said addresses my central concerns above.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

I never claimed to be addressing your concerns in older comments, I was only addressing your second last comment about using imagination to diagnose.

Priya Lynn
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

I like how you criticize me for responding and then complain I didn’t respond enough. ; )

RandyWells
January 17th, 2013 | LINK

Tell me Randy, what is worth more to you?

A. Convincing some poor soul into a lifetime of sexual anorexia through guilt, called celibacy, some resulting in suicide …..

or

B. Saving 10 naturally gay kids lives who are contemplating suicide, and the tens of family members who would be affected, by telling the kids they are ok and supporting them into a strong loving model of relationship.

Jesus would certainly not do A, yet you find that is his guidance?

Do you really believe Jesus Christ is guiding you to have gay people keep it unnaturally and unlovingly stuffed in their pants for life, avoiding intimacy sex and love at all costs? That may be your answer to an unloving life, but that is only you.

Not every kid gay or straight will be a messed up drug addicted and co-dependent gay life styler like you were. Many will never see the inside of a bar or do a drug.

Your anti gay message kills gay kids. And you are gay. How do you rationalize, not religiousize, how do you as a person rationalize that?

iDavid
January 19th, 2013 | LINK

As I said in my above posts, the addictions are many of which Randy has made us all aware if you caught it through time.

Randy is not at the segment of his emotional curve to be able to truly help himself. Nor is he at a curve to have Christ help him with his sexual / emotional dysfunction. Christ can only help the willing. His shame is too deep too strong and too stuck and he needs Christ’s non-homophobic personal help to prevail. To accept Christ into your heart is one thing. To use Christ’s name to shame guilt and cause suicide of gay kids BY A GAY MAN nonetheless, is not just pathetic, it’s demonic.

And it all has to do with his childhood. Yep another “adult/child” still stuck in his four year old, never emotionally maturing enough to have an adult intimate relationship.

The shame of being betrayed/rejected by his father, a relationship of which he has spoken of more than once, is so sick so stuck so prevalent and unwavering that all of his capacity for rational thought has been redirected to escaping a childhood of unresolved lack of loving emotional parental care. Hence the attraction to invisible father figures since he struck out on physical ones i.e. Jesus/god etc.

Sexual addiction in this case may not be the obvious equivalent of running from man to man trying to find his father’s love and acceptance through the highly addictive state called Co-dependency, but the celibacy result of tossing out sex love and intimacy due to losing every time, is. Not only is sexual celibacy in this case a sexual addiction, it is the obvious basic addiction for which he now lives.

Addictions are mood altering. Sexual celibacy is mood altering. It is refreshing. It means not having to deal with a multitude of problems. That’s what addictions do, they give a false of security. Hence sexual addiction is part of all the other addictions he still has tucked away, with celibacy now being the addiction of the day.

If he breaks celibacy, he’s screwed, because all the level one addictions, the obsessive compulsive mental tapes of unresolved problems, come flooding back that he doesn’t feel he can heal. It’s an awful state.

Exodus International and religious addiction are both mood altering, and is the perfect addiction for Randy because it fulfills all his answers of not having to deal with healing his issues with his father/male lover problem or having to deal with sex love and relationships because “homosexuality is broken”. Easy peasy. He’s sing’in in the rain. It’s his perfect meal ticket out. Why would anyone want to deal with sexual dysfunction and boyfriends that don’t give him the love he wants when his religion tells him he doesn’t have to? It’s so much easier to buy the meal ticket, be humorous pray and hide. Sex love and relationships are down the toilet in his mind anyway, so the religious set-up is perfect, as it agrees with his beliefs i.e. “gay life is awful!” …… with a betraying non loving non accepting father at the root of the entire problem.

God forbid all those corrupt lines in the Bible about gay sex turn out to be aimed only at hetero males and/or homosexual rape or a homophobic religious writer of which there is no background, all obvious upon sincere research and deduction. No talk of gays in the Bible? That’s a yes but Randy won’t hear of it. That would really break the bank of protection from his homo/family addiction problems. He’d have to find the next new life addiction, or buck up and be a man, the strong real man he was always trying to find. I see a lot of softness and flamboyance, a lot of estrogen but very little ‘man” in both Alan and Randy. They seem like weak males. They just can’t face life head on so their authenticity is compromised, which give the effect of weak and demure.

Unfortunately, Randy has been taught shame and betrayal on such a deep level by his family (migrane headaches included) that he now teaches it in the Great Sexual Hall of Shame called Exodus International. He loves “the church” because betrayal and shame are Randy consume’, a perfect match.
Randy currently upholds over 90% of the attributes ascribed to religious addicts ….

http://www.lexpages.com/SGN/paschal/religious_addiction.html

Randy won’t answer the question above about kids committing suicide because underneath his addict rhetoric he really doesn’t care, though he knows he should. If he did he would drop all his addictions, leave Exodus and help them. But in his confused state, dead gay kids are just necessary contraband, necessary fallout ….. “for the Lord”. Randy has been living a dead sex love and relationship model his whole life and in his mind, so should kids and all gay people. Go celibate, or die.

It’s quite unfortunate because it’s so easy to heal all this stuff …. but Randy doesn’t know how. So he betrays and shames gay kids and the gay community in general (a lighter blurry glossed over though just as deadly form of ‘Phelps’ demonization) and refuses helping them with their real problems of self acceptance, holding up all his shame based addictions saying, “look how hard I worked”! But he along with Alan, who Randy probably has an addictive co-dependent relationship with, have never worked on anything in their entire lives regarding healthy gay romance sex love and relationships ……. except….. escapism.

So to all of you that get angry upset or consider suicide by watching Randy or Alan’s Exodus model of how they live sex love and relationships, take a closer look at their pasts. It’s an unhealed massive mess of painful contradictions. As you might now notice, Christianity is a hot bed of corrupt sexual data playing host to sexual addiction. Both Randy and Alan are the hosts and are riddled with addictions, shaming themselves and the public via Exodus International because, well, that is what ma and pa and their corrupt “religion” taught them to do.

Alan’s childhood addiction; escapism. Randy’s; authentic intimate love from a male. Later in life addictions; all in the comments above, Randy adding substance addiction, both having addictive personalities on which they thrive surrounded by enablers and enablees.

I do have to hand it to Randy and
Alan though, they teach well what they know best. Sexual shame and shame in general. Shame in childhood, shame in adulthood, hence the adage adult/child. And they just keep pack’in ‘em in the Exodus palace of shame. T’would seem shame sells.

One thing’s for damn sure.

Misery loves company.

Jim Burroway
January 19th, 2013 | LINK

iDavid,

I think it’s time for your armchair, amateurish attempts at long-distance diagnosis to come to an end.

And here’s why. What you have done follows prefectly what a long line of others have done through the centuries. You started with people you don’t like and the things that they do that you don’t like. Then you found a “diagnosis” to explain the things that you saw that you don’t like and attributed it to the people you don’t like. And then you’ve spent the rest of this thread stubbornly clinging to your diagnosis of the people you don’t like and the things that they do that you don’t like. And when it has been pointed out that the basis of your initial diagnosis was false — I’m still looking for the evidence of “highly fueled sexual pasts” — all you did was shift a litle bit, tug and pull at the argument some more, and viola! — it stretches to fit what you wanted it to fit in the first place. Diagnosis complete.

Putting together the history sections of the Daily Agendas has been a real eye-opening experience for me. A lot of sins have been committed in the name of science — but as a trained scientist, I can tell you that if I did just a tenth of what some “scientists” have done, I’ld have been fired long ago. And, frankly, as a trained scientist, I see nothing that you’ve provided that even comes close to meeting the standard. There’s a lot of premise-fitting and backwards re-casting and bias confirmations, but those are the characteristics of orthodoxy, not science.

You’re not at all the first to do this. The problem is that so-called “social scientists,” mental health professionals, and other have done precisely what you’ve done for centuries. I could start at about 1800 when Franz Gall and Johan Spurzheim began studying criminals — people who a lot of people don’t like and who do a lot of very bad things. Something must be wrong with them, Gall and Spurzheim reasoned, and after many years of studying the problem, they came up with phrenology. This new “science” was both ahead of its time — they recognized that different parts of the brain had different functions, something very new and controversial at the time — and at the same time so incredibly primitive as to be useless. But that didn’t stop them. They kept working on the “useless” part. They kept adjusting, fitting, modifying and updating their theories every time they found a fact (or, more precisely, a person) which they couldn’t account for. And so for the next seventy years, people looked at other people they don’t like, measured the shapes of their sculls, and declared diagnosis on those people they didn’t like. Overdeveloped “secretiveness,” insufficient “amativeness”, a “philoprogenitiveness” which was happered by an insufficient “adhesiveness.” And so on.

It was all very scientific. It was also all very wrong.

I can anticipate the objection that phrenology is not a valid comparison. But why not? They thought it was scientific. Just like we think that modern mental health is based in science. Which, it is, isn’t it?

Okay, what about this.

In 1962, Irving Bieber wrote a book about people a lot of people didn’t like who did a lot of things that people didn’t like. The book’s title was “Homosexuality, an Analytical Approach.” Bieber started with a premise: gay people are mentally ill. Then he set about to “prove” that gay people were ill and that a few of them could be cured. And by golly he proved what he wanted to prove, so, ergo, homosexuality is an illness. And whenver someone challeneged him on it, he clung fast to homosexuality being an illness — even when discussing people he had never met and who had never stepped into his office. And whenever he was presented with evidence which challenged his position, his response was to merely shift, tug, and stretch his operating theories until that evidence “proved” once again that homosexuality is an illness. One former patient, Paul Moor, wrote a paper about his experience under Bieber’s ever-shifting theories. He titled it, appropriately, “Heads I win, Tails You Lose.

Except guess what? Homosexuality isn’t an illness! Hooray science! Science was wrong, but now science is right. Science even took a vote on it in 1974, because those who wanted homosexuality to be an illness argued that that’s how science is supposed to work. By a vote, and not data. (They lost the vote. Hooray, science!)

Again, I would refer you to many of the observations of Dr. Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist who decried the medicalization of behaviors. He recognized clearly how behaviors that we don’t like, when they are defined as pathological, end up being pathological by definition rather than by evidence:

The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?…[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed.

Szasz sometimes went overboard with his arguments. He famously called mental illness a “myth,” but we now know that some forms of mental illness actually have biological components — bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, some forms of depression, for example. But his larger point stands. Too often throughout history, the “illness” model was used as a substitute for moral opprobrium. The only reason some things got defined as an illness is that someone got to the definition first, and then began using it indiscriminately.

Sort of like what you’re doing. Many of Freud’s acolytes would be very proud. But if I ever encountered a doctor who tried to do what you’re doing, I’d run as fast and as far as I can. Or I’d laugh in his face. I’m actually not sure which. But I do know that I would report him to the licensing board.

iDavid
January 22nd, 2013 | LINK

Hi Jim,

I see where I have been a bit lacking in addressing yours and Tim’s concerns, so I will try and fill in the blanks. My apology if I seemed to have arrogantly pass them by.

When an ornithologist plucks a duck from the water to help him with his broken wing, he eventually puts the duck back in the water. When Randy was psycically plucked from the water and thrown on the operating table to deal with his problems, he wanted to be changed from a duck to a pigeon (with big gay drag queen smile). The doc, who Randy fell in love with, (I mean heck who wouldn’t, it was Jesus who I also love), said no, and they have not operated since. Hence Randy is still stuck on the operating table, dazzled by our brother and teachers gorgeous demeanor, not being returned to the water due to stubbornness and camelianizing to religious doctrine. Randy just won’t let the doctor operate.

Like the drunk uncle swerving in his car hitting people on the sidewalk, and like Randy and Alan wielding biblical switchblades at righteous gay people through compulsive escapism via vicious religious doctrine, they take an inordinate amount of the public’s time and energy to deal with. It’s called high maintenance. If our forefathers would have seen this in their crystal ball, I’m sure they would have added a discrimination clause to the separation of church and state. So yes I will be glad to end this conversation.

Before we do, I want to say that I do not find any basis in fact within your last comment. You make claims but do not back them up. You make it sound like I am inventing a square wheel but can’t seem to show me the spokes. I do believe by acknowledging the study of religious addiction, many Christians, not all, are religious addicts, of which Randy and Alan belong due to their compulsion to escape their sexual nature through irrational religious means. I am not diagnosing anyone, but the facts do tell me that they fall into the realm of religious addicts.

Addiction terminology definition and counseling has been around a very long time and is still going strong as a viable medical model of treatment. I have studied psychology and addiction for 25 years and I don’t believe Oprah Dr Phil Dr Drew Dr Oz or any of our greats on the subject would agree with your analysis that I’m trying to start some new wave psyche invention that hasn’t been done before. You and Tim seem to know nothing about the subject of addiction, at least anything you would care to share. If you go to Amazon.com you will find more than 900 books written on religious addiction. I have laid proof to my thoughts at most every corner, yet comment on those from you both are non existent. If you are going to challenge me, at least bring some facts about my comments to the table that disagree with the medical addiction model. It’s not what you say that concerns me, but what you don’t say.

“Armchair diagnosis?” Sherlock Holmes called it deductive reasoning. I call it my thoughts on the subjects mentioned.

Regarding “drug fueled pasts”. It would seem Randy just now lied about his sexual past on your blog in his above comment. He said he had sex “a couple of times”. In a recent article authored by Randy on his own blog dated 10-16-2012,

http://randythomas.co/2012/10/16/does-a-sexually-active-past-dictate-marriage-as-our-only-alternative/

he states “I had plenty of sex with plenty of people before becoming a Christian”. This was when he had “slipped far into the gay lifestyle” quote from video below. Those are the kinds of comments that lead me to believe someone has had a sex fueled past.

In a video interview of Randy dated June 6, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3JlKmu29g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

he states at 15:30 to 17:00 “the drugs the sex and my gay identity had numbed the void in my heart that “he” (Jesus) wanted to fill”. Same thing, drugs partying the gay lifestyle sex, all lead me to determine he led a sex fueled past. And by his own admission in these two docs, he did. Why he lies about it now is not of my concern. As RandyWells said above, addicts are notorious liars, and this is true, particularly to themselves. But the lie does lead me to believe even more that he was a sex addict and is in denial about it to the public, with both he and Alan afraid they may lose cred.

You can’t call someone a sex addict who is in denial and expect them to tell you the truth. Hiding and not admitting to addictions is what addicts do in the denial stage. And it is very common to trade one addiction for another. An alcoholic may take up smoking as a replacement etc. The addiction model in AA says “once and addict always an addict”. So when you give something up for life, like alcohol sex drugs etc, you have to stay away because to go back to them brings up the addiction again, hence always an addict in practice or waiting.

Randy abandoning sex drugs alcohol etc, this tells me that they were all tied together and that he was a sex addict along with his other addictions and needed to stop. He was just plain confused. He did after all, become gay by reading about gay people in a “pamphlet”, as he describes in the above video 1:30 – 3:00. And as he states in the above article, sexual activity left him “broken hearted”, another term for guilty, which is part and parcel to sexual addiction.

Now I could be totally wrong. Dr. Drew might throw me right off the stage, but when I stack up all the facts and hit “enter”, sex addict with other multiple addictions is what I personally come up with. Celibacy in this instance I see as escapism with mood altering effects, all addictive traits. It is just my personal opinion, but I think I’m accurate.

Anyway guys, sorry again if I seemed like I was not addressing your concerns, but I hope this gives you some completion. As it is with Exodus, they take a lot of time and they love negative attention, so I think I will stop right here.

What we really need is an organization as powerful as Exodus and “the church” to deal with their fallout to help our dead friends’ families and the ones bleeding badly but still alive. Switchblades are both harmful and deadly. Any thoughts on that would be great if you have any. And I am open to giving you any more info here if I have missed anything.

Have a great day gents.

Robert
January 22nd, 2013 | LINK

iDavid.

Two words: Terri Shiavo.

Priya Lynn
January 22nd, 2013 | LINK

Alan Chambers has said “Alan Chambers “I chose to live differently, and my feelings changed, too…Today, I am a far different person. Not that I don’t struggle, but my life has changed. I certainly don’t have the desire to be involved in homosexuality. It has no power over me.”

He admits that he struggles although he then claims gayness has no power over him. Clearly one is true and the other not. One does not say “not that I don’t stuggle” if one truly does not struggle. Exgays however are notorious for falsely claiming to have changed.

Alan Chambers has also said “Everyday, I wake up and deny what comes naturally to me”.

There is no doubt that Alan and Randy sacrifice some of their happiness and devote significant energy to suppressing their gayness, this is a negative impact on their life and they do it because they are unable to cease their religious behaviors.

An addiction is a behavior that one no longer has the ability to refrain from which causes negative effects on a person’s health.

One doesn’t need in depth personal interviews or training to see this is the case with both of them. One can as easily see they are addicted to religion just as one can easily see a person one knows little about who admits to constantly missing work due to drinking is addicted to alcohol.

To bring up the error of phrenology as though that has any bearing on the validity of psychology or psychiatry is a non-sequitor.

I read Jim’s last comment and see nothing in it that contradicts anything I’ve said in this comment. We can certainly debate the degree to which their religious addiction harms them but that it does harm them some amount is obvious.

Jim Burroway
January 22nd, 2013 | LINK

You guys, you’re hopeless.

If you cannot see that you are doing EXACTLY to people you don’t like what others have done to us, then there is nothing I can say to convince you that what you are proposing is about as far away from anything remotely resembling science.

And so I will simply close with this final fact: Just because people can write a lot of books and sell them on Amazon.com, that does not a mental diagnosis make. All that proves is that there is a market for psychobabble. There is only one book that matters in that regard, and “Religious addiction” is not in the DSM-IV.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.