Evangelical ousted over gay marriage

I think it's simply wonderful that evangelical Christianity is winnowing its ranks to include only its most rigid, authoritarian, and obedient members. Put another way, I'm truly grateful that the days of open-minded and compassionate Christianity may be soon coming to an end.

It's also high time that the rest of the world learned what a religious virtue it can be to hate homosexuals so much.

The Evangelicals are currently fulfilling their most intense desires (to be cast into utter darkness).

Hellooooo! Evangelicals!
Look around and find some Good News, eh?

Mr. Cizik has allowed his understanding of Christian theology to deteriorate to the point that it is no longer compatible with that expected of a man in his position - and so the position is no longer his. All is as it should be.

The truth cannot change with time. Period!

No, Mr./Ms. Good!
It sounds more that Mr. Czik learned the difference between Christian theology and government policy, and realized that, in a nation where there is separation of church and state, evangelicals have no business imposing their beliefs on others. It truly exposes that evangelical christians are not really about personal salvation and conversion, they are about the imposition of their beliefs by governmental force and coercion.

Thanks Goodness the evangelicals stood their ground. There are many fools who think that religious faith should be subject to a democratic process, rather than the Word of God. When that happens, faith will be meaningless.

Charles Colson, who betrayed the country and his Constitutional oath while working for Nixon and still upholds Republican values whether or not they are Christian values is an authority on who is a Christian? I wonder if Jesus would qualify? I am deeply sorry for the evangelical movement.

KJR, kcc, et al...Religious faith has absolutely nothing to do with the word of God. The arrogance, the utter hubris of those of you who think that you can fathom the mind of God - it's stupefying beyond imagination. You know what God thinks? Does God speak to you, telling you to go after those whom you hate and fear? Have you been hearing voices? No, your faith has absolutely nothing to do with the word of God. It has everything to do with achieving power and control over others while never having to control yourself, and for many of the charlatans involved, it also tends to be accompanied by the requisite amassing of large amounts of wealth. You're entitled to your beliefs. You're not entitled to try to shove those beliefs down anyone's throat. And every time you mention the "word of God", you attempt to force your beliefs on others. Live your own lives. And stay the hell out of the lives of those who have not invited you in. Pretty simple really.

I can't believe all of you. This is exactly what the modern USA needs- we need to work together. Churches can't stick to the same base that they had 100 years ago, society, technology, and cultures have changed, they've evolved and religions need to as well if they want to continue to bring in supporters and keep their faithful numbers. And I understand that the topic of gay marriage might be against their belief, but rising against a man who can come to TOLERATE it, to accept its presence in the everchanging world? What does that say about their loyalty to each other? We're not still using the horse and buggy... it's time for the Church to upgrade too.

Do the libs
here realize that they live in a cocoon?

Do you really think Christianity is as liberal in the rest of the USA as it is here?

Wake up

Mr. Cizik's "sin" is that he let his mind follow Jesus' message to its logical conclusion. Discriminating against gays is not consistent with Christian values. Too bad his colleagues in the movement are incapable of understanding the Good News.

It's not a case of hating homosexuals. More to the point it's when the homosexuals, a relative minority, get up in the face of society flaunting their "gayness" and "demanding" equal rights (an abstract concept at best). If heterosexuals flaunted their sexuality so brazenly they'd be arrested. Civil unions would solve the problems of property rights and familial relationships buit NOOOOO we want to be married. Do what you want in the privacy of your own space but don't try and foist it on the rest of the world!

So, the Evangelicals did what they always accuse liberals of doing: punishing those who do not toe their line. How ironic.

An abstract concept? Is it an abstract concept to be able to receive federal benefits, visit your loved on in a hospital, have dual property rights, adopt children?

BTW, if you don't think heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality as much, go find a porno site or go to the Alley during the weekend. We're no different

I also feel tremendously fortunate to live in a world where special people alone have direct, unmediated access to the Divine conscience on all matters.

Thank you, evangelicals. Thank you for standing up to women, African Americans, children, homosexuals, and all others asking for "rights" or the kind of special consideration which ought to offend every decent, God-fearing Christian.

To Xenophon:

LOL! Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality all the time, and do so far more brazenly than most gays, and no one notices, because it is so widespread. But let two gay men do things as innocent as walking down the street holding hands, and it becomes a grazen flaunting of their sexuality.

Heterosexuals kiss and hug in public all the time. Why can't gays do it without being accused of flaunting?

New Jersey, which has one of the strongest civil unions laws in the country, is finding that civil unions simply do not solve all the problems of property rights nor grant all the benefits of marriage, by simple virtue of the fact that it is not considered the same as marriage by the people gays often have to interact with. They are finding that landlords don't treat civil partners of a tenant the same as they would a spouse of a tenant. Insurance companies don't either. Gays still find they have to go to court and sue in order to get the equal treatment promised, and even then it may not happen.

Once again, we are learning that separate but equal just doesn't work.

Hello?! Mr/Ms Xenophon! Just turn on the television! You will see heterosexuals flaunting their sexualty all day " foisting it on the rest of the world." And by the way, civil unions in no way adequately resolve the issues of legal, uncontestable familial relationships. How dare gay people want complete equal rights! That should be reserved for the likes of you. Right? Your response makes it obvious that you don't want to have to look at other human beings you don't approve of; such people should simply keep quiet and stay in an enclave where they are out of your vision. Too bad you are so small.

In response to Xenophon, who said: "If heterosexuals flaunted their sexuality so brazenly they'd be arrested."

Um, turned on your TV lately? Heterosexuality is flaunted just about every second on the air. Certainly nothing hidden there and some of it is pretty boldly brazen. Don't see a pile of arrest warrants, though.

Gay marriage IS about the privacy of one's own space - between two adults who choose to be a couple in every way. Just like heterosexual marriage. And separate is never equal when there is inconsistent application of rights. There's a great bumper sticker - If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one! It really is that simple. Religion should not be part of determining civil rights.

Cizik was proven right on climate change and he'll be proven right on equal marriage, too. For those who haven't seen it. Lisa Miller's essay in Newsweek, "Our Mutual Joy," 12/6/08 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653) argues that far from compelling our exclusion from the church and from civil society, the Bible and Christ's teachings support our inclusion and acceptance. As has often been said, homosexuality didn't even make it into the Top Ten, but Love Your Neighbor certainly did.

And finally, to Xenophone (#12), do you wear a wedding ring? Do you have a picture of your spouse and children on your desk at work? Do you talk about getting together with your family over the holidays? Have you ever held your significant other's hand in public, gone out on a date, danced together at a club or party? Do you have a "Baby on Board" or "My Child is an Honor Student" sticker on your car? If so, why must you flaunt your heterosexuality in all these ways? If you open your eyes, you'll see that straight people CONSTANTLY flaunt their sexuality! They are always flirting and kissing and making out in public. They announce their engagements and weddings in newspapers, to complete strangers, for heavens sake, and send out birth announcements for their babies. Whenever I want a quiet evening at home watching TV, I can't get away from heterosexuality and most movies have a heterosexual romance or two in the plot. Given that everyone knows you're straight, who's doing the flaunting?

Everything must change, nothing stays the same! For those who cannot change or evolve will suffer and anguish in fear. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Jesus is rolling in his resting place listening to all the hate being thrown around.

"The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes. . . . .
[Applying this observation to the slavery:]
"But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go -- and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed."
-- Mark Twain, "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice"

To be fair, one should note that Twain wrote this in defense of religion. Twain's stand in this piece was much more anti-clerical than anti-Christian.

When did Fundamentalists start calling themselves "Evangelicals" anyway? When "Fundamentalist" became recognized as describing something judgmental, harsh, hateful and sometimes violent? The word meant Protestant, and more particularly followers of Luther's church (as opposed to Calvinists). Few members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America would be welcomed by those Fundamentalists calling themselves "Evangelical" today.

Hey Leftie - thanks for proving my point. It is meaningless in your eyes because your conform it to whatever you want it to be - which makes it MEANINGLESS. (Your hateful tone is also noted, which is a signature of the left... tolerance for only those to agree with them)

I also thank God that evangelicals are unique in honoring the separation of church and state, by refraining so judiciously from trying to bend the civil concept of marriage to reflect any one religion's understanding of same.

Only those who know, in their heart of hearts, that the universe is a monarchy can save the rest of us from the twin evils of a pluralistic society and representative government.

Hey, KJR...

You claim that "a singature of the left [is] tolerance for only those [who] agree with them."

Seeing as you called those who disagree with your world view "fools" (#6), I have to wonder when you joined the left.

Is it just me or does he look like Roy Scheider?

This msg is really for those on the extreme right wing of the evangelical base....... I am an openly gay evangelical Christian who believes in the infallible Word of God and I KNOW that I am a born-again Christian too, who believes that God gave Mary a son, who is to be called Jesus who was and has been sacrificed on the Cross at Calvary for the Sins of the World so that those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Personal Savior, will have everlasting life. How do I know this? By reading (NKJV) John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Going on to John 3:17 which says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." So, it stands to reason that I'm a believer in that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for MY sins and rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father? Correct? Therefore, I know that I'm saved from the hands of the enemy.

Also, for those on the extreme right wing, it might behoove you to show some UNCONDITIONAL LOVE WITHOUT STRINGS ATTACHED to your fellow men and women irregardless of who they are and what they are. God created them in His minds eye and He knew darn well what He was doing when He created each and every one of us.

Lesson is concluded. Any questions? Oh, and one more thing......the word homosexuality was NOT coined until the 1800's, thus the word was only put into the Bible to fit the hateful attitudes of those on the right wing......and God sure as heck didn't put that word in there, hateful people who call themselves Christians did that!

Michael A. Teale
St. Louis, Missouri

Michael - it is the idea that homosexual behavior is acceptable to God and His plan is what is the issue, not any unconditional love issue. Jesus unconditionally loved the harlot, and told her to "go and sin no more". The bible is clear regarding homosexual behavior (which is DISTINGUISHABLE from the person). We are all sinners, but are commanded to love all unconditionally. Part of love and charity is to admonish those who continually do things that are contrary to God's revealed will. No one can argue that based the words of Paul and Jesus that homosexual behavior is consistent with God's will and plan. Adulterers fall under the same proscription. Why do gays and lesbians want a free pass?

Notso, I have not. If you look at the context of the post, you will see that you missed the point.

Michael - are you really saying that the word "homosexual" was added to the bible in the 1800s?

KJR:

I'm not saying that the GLBT community is asking for a free pass, what I'm saying is that those on the far right need to stop their judgemental attitudes and let God do the judging. They need to accept the fact that there are a lot of GLBT Christians out there who believe the same way that those on the extreme right wing do and there is no room for pettiness and bickering over trivial issues. What really needs to happen here is that those who continue to use the Bible for their hateful attitudes towards the gay community and the gay community should all come together and work together to bring those that don't know Jesus as their Personal Savior and Lord of their life, BRING them to the Lord and show them that God loves them and forgives them of their sins and starts studying and growing in the knowledge that God is Love and learning all about God through the infallible Word of God. All of this needs to happen before Jesus comes back for His Bride (which is His Church)!

The gentleman who was removed from his position has a right to his viewpoints and the NAE forcing him to step down for those viewpoints just glaringly shows their hatred and judgmental attitudes toward the same sex marriage issue. I as a gay man could really care less if this country finally grants the GLBT community the right to marry or not. Just as long as we're all able to have committed civil/holy unions and share our love for one another without having people like the NAE trample on our special day with friends and loved ones.

My motto to those like the NAE: Live and let live!

For crying out loud, get over yourselves!

Michael

KJR:

What I'm saying is that people who ARE on the far right wing and had/have hateful attitudes towards the GLBT community PROBABLY added the word "homosexuality" after it was coined to certain verses in the Bible to support their hatred and their bigoted views of the gay community to justify it in the Bible by again, using the Bible as their weapon of hate towards the GLBT community.

Again, nothing surprises me anymore.

Michael

Welcome to reality and the 21st century.

As KJR should know, but apparently doesn't, the Bible makes some mention only about male homosexual behavior, says nothing about female homosexual behavior, and the references to make homosexual behavior are in very same parts of the Bible that condemn as abominations bacon cheeseburgers and clam chowder. Should we assume, then, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church should invest tens of millions of dollars to get MacDonald's and Legal Seafoods, etc. shut down? Or, alternatively, that it's OK for lesbians to get married, but not gay men?

Since St. Paul was an apostate Jew who didn't get along with people who actually knew Jesus personally and during his lifetime very well (but then, based on his letters, there were a lot of people with whom St. Paul didn't get along) and since he was also a strong supporter of spousal abuse and slavery, I'm assuming that nobody rational would want to invoke him as an authority on anything.

I think that despite being a fundamentalist bigot, Xenophon (post 12) should be commended for suggesting something that relatively few supporters of marriage by two consenting adults, regardless of orientation, have been calling for. I personally have no problem with allowing members of the clergy to conduct wedding ceremonies that are recognized civilly as well as religiously. But if s/he does feel, as is clear from inference, that clergypeople should not be performing ceremonies that are recognized civilly, that's OK with me, even though it would call for couples who want their weddings recognized both civilly and religiously to have two separate ceremonies.

KJR: Yes, you did indeed call people who disagreed with your world view "fools".

And Michael is correct. The word "homosexual" was not coined until the late 1800's. In fact, the very concept that there existed people who were sexually attracted to members of their own gender and not to members of the opposite gender wasn't recognized until the 19th Century. Before then, the common notion was that while there were people who on occasion had sex with members of their own gender, those acts were isolated and did not define an inherent characteristic of the person(s) involved, i.e,. they were still sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender, and were merely finding a sexual outlet wherever they could.

Finally, you wrote, "No one can argue that based the words of Paul and Jesus that homosexual behavior is consistent with God's will and plan."

I would like to point out that No one can argue that, based on the words of Paul and Jesus, that homosexual behavior is INconsistent with God's will and plan, since neither Paul nor Jesus said one word about same-gender sex. The only condemnation of same-gender sex is found in the Old Testament, usually among a whole bunch of things that are prohibited, but which Christians ignore, such as the eating of shellfish and the wearing of mixed fibers.

We now know this view of sexuality is incorrect.

Correction to my message #35.

The statement "We now know this view of sexuality is incorrect." should be between the second and third paragraphs (between "wherever they could." and "Finally, you wrote...").

It is an absurd notion to argue that homosexual behavior is not condemned. It is put in the same category as other proscribed acts like adulterers, fornicators or thieves. If you are not a Christian, then it is irrelevant, but if you are, you are in denial:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

KJR:

Obviously, we are never going to agree here. So, we might as well agree to disagree here. Again, the word "homosexuality" was NOT coined until the 1800's and AGAIN, it is my fervent belief that those on the far right wing of the evangelical Christian base at some point after the 1800's or during, not sure which, used and put the word "homosexuality" into the Bible to support their hatred and bigotry of the GLBT community.

That I have no doubt of. So, stop using the Bible to justify your bigotry and hatred of those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered who I might add, many of which are born-again Christians and believe in the Bible just as much as you do.

Michael

Enough is enough with this BS from the Bible Thumpers! What makes you people believe that what was written by people ages ago, during scientifically ignorant times, is relevant today? KJR, please explain to all of us why you, or anyone, should take the Bible literally? Why were those people, and not the people of today, granted some theological advantage to know what is true and what is not? Think about it: you really believe that humans living in the dark ages, who mistook thunderstorms as the voice of god instead of weather patterns, or blood stains on loaves of bread as the sign of the devil instead of bacterial infection by a red-pigment producing bacterial strain, or abnormal menstruation as a punishment from god instead of a sexually transmitted disease, or a seziure disorder instead of possession by the devil, are representative of our modern notions of morality?

YOU ARE HIDING BEHIND YOUR RELIGION! A religion you've CHOSEN to believe in and never question. But, as with all fundamentalists, rational thought and reason is not in your vocabulary.
Wake up: Religion is a choice, homosexuality isn't.

Once again, KJR, since the entire concept of homosexuality was unknown in Biblical times, it is clear that the placement of "homosexuals" in your quote is a late addition and can in no way be an accurate translation of the original.

The KJV says, "abusers of themselves with mankind", which is much more vague as to meaning; the use of the word "abuser" could very well mean those who go against their natural inclinations, which would describe the concept of same-gender sex I mentioned in my last post, but would not include homosexuals as we understand the concept today.

The original Greek text contains the word "malakoi" where your translation uses "effeminate." Elsewhere in the bible where that word is used, it is translated as "soft" or "pliable". A more accurate translation in the context of Corinthians would be to describe people who are easily influenced (pliable). Other writings from the same era make it clear that the word can also refer to those lacking courage or who are lazy. Nowhere else, except this one passage, is the word ever translated to mean "effeminate."

Where your translation uses "homosexuals", the original Greek is "arsenokoitai". The exact meaning of this word is not known to scholars. It is a word that is not encountered anywhere else. From the root, "arsen", it is clear that the word has something to do with "man", but beyond that, nothing is known. If it is a reference to those who engage in same-gender sex (a VERY big if), it is clear that it can only refer to male-male sex, and not to lesbians. So it is clear that "homosexuals" (which includes lesbians) can not possibly be an accurate translation. Many Biblical scholars believe the word refers to male prostitutes, and not to all who engage in male-male sex.

Rich - you reject Christianity in total, so your response is irrelevant to my post. My post related to what Christianity teaches and has always taught. You are not arguing what Michael and I are talking about.

Michael - you have fallen into the trap judging me. It is not Christian to hate anyone. There is a difference between the person and the behavior. God Bless you.

Sexual behavior is also a choice, Rich.

KJR and Xenophon,

If you feel that your God doesn't want you to marry a homosexual, then I think you shouldn't marry one.

On the other hand, George W. Bush, self proclaimed "compassionate" "conservative" "born-again" "Christian," claimed that he sought guidance from his heavenly father, not his earthly one. Assuming that W did in fact follow the guidance his heavenly father purportedly gave him, his God, who is presumably your God, is responsible for the deaths of scores of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children (all of them post-born), creating well over a million Iraqi refugees, and the trashing of the American middle class and the American worker for the next couple of generations. Either God really doesn't like America best, or his reputation for omniscience is grossly overstated, or George W. Bush is more than entitled to spend eternity in the fires of hell as Jesus mandated in Matthew 25. Which one do you think is most accurate?

KJR: of course sexual behavior is a choice. Do you have some hidden neurosis about your own sexuality that you find the need to be preoccupied with other people's sexuality? If you need a book to tell you what is moral and what isn't, then, you're the type of person who NEEDS a book to tell you what is moral and what isn't. You know nothing of my relationship to Christianity. What you seem to be lacking is the central message of it.

"9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

It's beyond evident the Bible was written by a bunch of misogynistic men, without God as their editor.

KJR's above excerpt demonstrates a considerable contempt for things feminine. I believe male heterosexual homophobia is primarily rooted in misogyny, in many cases.

The authors, who condemn male on male sex in the Bible, don't even acknowledge female on female sex. Why? Because it's permissable. Perhaps they, like many heterosexual men, became aroused at the idea of girl-on-girl sex. But a man lowering himself to that of a woman by either acting like one ("effeminate") or having sex with another male ("homosexual")? NEVER!

When I was struggling with my fundamentalist upbringing and with my coming out, I seriously believed what the Bible said about me and about my afterlife, and I was terrified. I prayed to God on a daily basis, often crying myself to sleep because I wanted to change. I wasted 14 years of my life in the closet, only manipulating, hurting, and disillusioning women, all to play a part the heterosexual world would have me play simply so they wouldn't have to deal with who I truly am.

I'm not wasting more time on a book of mythology that has been used so often, and so fiercely, as a justification for hate, for war, for killing, for minority persecution, and for oppression.

Frankly, now, I have a hard time respecting any adult who takes it all literally, or believes that God had anything to do with its coming into being.

Peter, if you think the bible is a book of mythology written by misogynistic men, that is your choice, and that is not the debate. The debate is what that mythology and those misogynistic men said. You of course are free to accept that or not, That is not part of the debate between Michael (and to some extent) Rich, and me. And I thank you for diagnosing my psychological disorder for me. I am grateful to get free psychological help. (By the way, I love my wife, daughter, and yes, my gay family members, and hopefully, with all of my faults, they love me too unconditionally. )

Rich, you need to be honest in your discussion. If you believe that scripture is the Word of God, then that is one thing. You appear to pick and choose what you want to accept based on your self-centered subjective choices for lifestyle, without regard whatsoever to 5000 years of history and traditional church teaching, which is a very different thing. So you can't have it both ways.

AMEN Rich!!! the one of few posts here that makes sense! Wake up people. The bible is a man made, man written text. A text that has been translated countless times from an almost extinct language, one that most religions have tried to manipulate in there favor? Give me a break! ENOUGH of the insanity...

KJR: so do you accept then the teachings of the mythology of misogynistic men or what?

No Rich, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and he established His Church when he handed Peter the "keys to the kingdom" and told him "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven". Your spin on what that means and your confusion of sinfulness within the Church as a justification to bash her teachings is your expression of the last accepted bigotry in society - that toward Christianity, and more specifically, the Catholic Church. Whether you believe that or not is not the point, but at the same time, don't pretend to know what it is that she teaches when you summarily dismiss her legitimacy. Its ok, I understand, I was once where you are now.

KJR: if you prefer not to be a victim of anti-christian or anti-catholic bigotry, you can change your religion! Through the love of god and the power of jesus christ, you can do it! I have faith in you!

It's amazing how many people blindly accept the grand illusion, the great fairy tale. The man made made up delusion of men centuries ago. Those who sleep are the truly lost souls and those who have awaken are the enlightened! Peace...

Rich - and I suppose if you don't want to be a victim of anti gay bigotry, you can recognize the immorality of homosexual behavior, be strong, and even though you are gay, earn respect by standing up against gay marriage and homosexual behavior.

Marc - there is no one who is so blind who will not see. Some day you will, willingly or otherwise.

KJR- are you one of these quirky ex-gay people?
Oh you guys are always so interesting.

What is that, Rich? I thought being gay is completely uncontrollable?