The new disinfranchised -- Christians??

[noshameinChrist]

The US Constitution was created to be flexible, as it was a document created primarily to undergird the will of the people. In this democratic-republic system in which I live I understand that legal change may take place ultimately based on the will of the people.

I was recently asked if I support homosexual marriage. My response was no. However, and again, I see and understand the shift that is taking place in our society. The evidence clearly suggests that homosexual relationships are becoming more than a tolerated lifestyle in our country, they are (and in many locals already have) becoming an accepted lifestyle.

I strongly believe, as this effort moves forward, Christians will be faced with a hard line decision - Either accept the homosexual lifestyle without challenge or be economically, socially, and/or politically isolated and labeled by terms historically applied to deplorable groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. As a person of color, with a deep understanding of this country’s history leading up to the civil rights struggles of the 60s, I am disgusted by this prospect. Nevertheless (and using a phrase borrowed from scripture) “the writing is on the wall�. I wonder if others see this. How many Christians, committed to the teachings of scripture, have considered what is taking place?

Although I am a Christian (the “fundamentalist� label has been attached to me, and while I only self-proclaim to being a Christian, I am not offended by the term) I have no plans to fight what this country decides to do on a “legal� basis with regard to the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. As a Christian, however, I plan to always oppose sin.

Should Christians be concerned who hold the same position?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 22 by noshameinChrist]

While you may regard homosexuality as a sin, does your god regard it as naughty given that there is nothing in the bible about female homosexuality, let alone any condemnation? And Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality, but he did about adultery, and that is because an adulterer has choice whereas a homosexual does not have choice, which Jesus recognized (Matt 19:12).

Sorry, but do you know what a Eunich is? The person is someone who doesn't have sex at all. Your application of scripture is off. In addition, while a person might not be able to determine how they "feel", they do have a "choice" about how they act on those feelings.

No, that is not true. An eunuch is someone who has no balls. That does not mean they can't have sex. .. although they are not fertile.
Euunichs are not sexually functional only if it is done before puberty.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 22 by noshameinChrist]

While you may regard homosexuality as a sin, does your god regard it as naughty given that there is nothing in the bible about female homosexuality, let alone any condemnation? And Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality, but he did about adultery, and that is because an adulterer has choice whereas a homosexual does not have choice, which Jesus recognized (Matt 19:12).

Sorry, but do you know what a Eunich is? The person is someone who doesn't have sex at all. Your application of scripture is off. In addition, while a person might not be able to determine how they "feel", they do have a "choice" about how they act on those feelings.

Nope. A eunuch (eunikos in Greek) means bed-chamber attendant and one that is "so born from their mother's womb" is a homosexual bed-chamber attendant.

[Divine Insight]

Do you mean like me trying to educate my kids? There are so many in society NOW who are trying to force my kids to believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual conduct. I'm sorry, but Who is forcing "morality" who here?

Are your children naturally homosexual? Do they need to be taught to be heterosexual?

And what do you do if your child truly is homosexual innately and no amount of "teaching" can change their innate orientation?

Do you then chalk up your child to simply being an evil person who has knowingly chosen to pursue and evil lifestyle?

I'm not homosexual. But no one ever taught me to have the orientation I have. It's just the way I am naturally.

Please be assured, I would not force-feed anyone the gospel of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4). Those who want to hear it, great, I will be willing to share it (Mark 16:15-16). Those who don't have no worries about me attempting to chase them down (Mark 6:11). I cannot speak for others.

Well if you are teaching your children that God hates homosexuality then you are indeed "Force-feeding" the gospels of Christ onto people. Except as someone else had already pointed out Jesus himself didn't even preach this kind of bigotry. So it doesn't even come from Jesus.

Like I say, you believe that something is a "sin" and claim that your plea is for everyone to turn to "God" (where the Bible is supposedly the word of God).

But the problem there is that the Biblical dogma is filled with horrific things.

I could claim to take you up on your intention and grab the Bible and take it literally. I could go out killing witches, heathens, homosexuals, etc.

What would you do then?

I would try to teach you about Jesus Christ, and point out that such killing is not consistent with his teachings (Luke 9:54-56].

You could never achieve that goal because the rumors of Jesus also have him proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. The only jots and tittles that he could have possibly been referring to where those of the Old Testament since he never wrote down any jots and tittles himself.

Therefore you wouldn't be "teaching" me anything. All you would be doing is attempting to explain to me how you personally have created your own image of Jesus via your own personal interpretations and choice of scriptures.

In fact, if you believe that you could teach anyone about Jesus Christ then all you believe is that you are somehow better at interpreting these ancient rumors than other people. But that's nothing short of selfish pride and arrogance. In fact, this is precisely the problem with these ancient religions. Everyone one who gets involved with them seems to think they they understand this God better than everyone else.

I've totally read the Bible countless times. And the problem is that these scripture are so totally self-contradicting that it truly is impossible to claim to know what they mean.

So for you to claim to know what Jesus meant specifically is truly absurd. Especially if you think that you are in a position to "teach" other people what Jesus meant.

This is the arrogance of individual Christians.

Would you try to argue that I'm not "Following the teachings of the Bible"?

Yes. At the very least you would be lacking an understanding about Jesus' teachings. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

I would not be lacking any understanding at all. Like I said above, that very attitude can be nothing more than your own arrogance speaking. That you believe that the Jesus you have created in your mind somehow represents a more accurate picture than the Jesus other people see in these scriptures.

This is precisely an example of the arrogance of individual Christians.

You miss quoted the passage. You missed a key part. Please read Matthew 5:17-18. You need to understand that Jesus did in fact "fulfill" as he explains in verse 17 of that chapter.

That is nonsense. All you are suggesting is that I ignore the verses I like and reject them in favor of the verses YOU PREFER.

Again, the arrogance of individual Christians to believe that they speak for "The Christ" and everyone who disagrees with THEM has it all wrong.

That's baloney.

These ancient fables are extremely dangerous, in spite of what the motivation behind following them might be.

Your own personal motivation to follow these teachings is actually quite irrelevant.

As is your own personal interpretations of what they might even be instructing people to do.

Please see comments above.

I have seen your comments above and they represent nothing more than your own personal self-importance in believing that you somehow have the "correct' interpretations of scriptures whilst everyone else has it all wrong.

This is precisely an example of the stereotypical arrogance of Christians.

You believe that YOU speak for Christ.

You'll have to excuse me for not taking you the least bit seriously. But this is so typical it's actually quite predicable. You're position does not surprise me in the least. In fact, your position is precisely why Christianity exists as a myriad of disagreeing sects.

No two Christians will even agree with each other on what Jesus meant or stands for.

So your belief that YOU speak for Christ, is neither new nor impressive.

On the contrary it so typical that it's boring.

It's also extremely hypocritical on your part because you are renouncing homosexuality (something taught in Old Testament) whilst pretending that this view is somehow supported by Jesus.

There's no way that you can support that without being extremely inconsistent and/or hypocritical.

[noshameinChrist]

Do you mean like me trying to educate my kids? There are so many in society NOW who are trying to force my kids to believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual conduct. I'm sorry, but Who is forcing "morality" who here?

Are your children naturally homosexual? Do they need to be taught to be heterosexual?

And what do you do if your child truly is homosexual innately and no amount of "teaching" can change their innate orientation?

Do you then chalk up your child to simply being an evil person who has knowingly chosen to pursue and evil lifestyle?

I'm not homosexual. But no one ever taught me to have the orientation I have. It's just the way I am naturally.

To answer your questions in order:
1. No.
2. No, they are taught what the scriptures teach on the matter.
3. I don't believe people are "innately" homosexual.
4. See # 3, above.

Please be assured, I would not force-feed anyone the gospel of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4). Those who want to hear it, great, I will be willing to share it (Mark 16:15-16). Those who don't have no worries about me attempting to chase them down (Mark 6:11). I cannot speak for others.

Well if you are teaching your children that God hates homosexuality then you are indeed "Force-feeding" the gospels of Christ onto people. Except as someone else had already pointed out Jesus himself didn't even preach this kind of bigotry. So it doesn't even come from Jesus.

I teach my kids that God hates sin. Jesus taught against sin(Matthew 913)

Like I say, you believe that something is a "sin" and claim that your plea is for everyone to turn to "God" (where the Bible is supposedly the word of God).

But the problem there is that the Biblical dogma is filled with horrific things.

I could claim to take you up on your intention and grab the Bible and take it literally. I could go out killing witches, heathens, homosexuals, etc.

What would you do then?

I would try to teach you about Jesus Christ, and point out that such killing is not consistent with his teachings (Luke 9:54-56].

You could never achieve that goal because the rumors of Jesus also have him proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. The only jots and tittles that he could have possibly been referring to where those of the Old Testament since he never wrote down any jots and tittles himself.

Therefore you wouldn't be "teaching" me anything. All you would be doing is attempting to explain to me how you personally have created your own image of Jesus via your own personal interpretations and choice of scriptures.

In fact, if you believe that you could teach anyone about Jesus Christ then all you believe is that you are somehow better at interpreting these ancient rumors than other people. But that's nothing short of selfish pride and arrogance. In fact, this is precisely the problem with these ancient religions. Everyone one who gets involved with them seems to think they they understand this God better than everyone else.

You asked me what would I do. I just answered your question, and provided a scriptural sample upon which I based my answer. I never said you had to heed my words.

I've totally read the Bible countless times. And the problem is that these scripture are so totally self-contradicting that it truly is impossible to claim to know what they mean.

If you say so.

So for you to claim to know what Jesus meant specifically is truly absurd. Especially if you think that you are in a position to "teach" other people what Jesus meant.

This is the arrogance of individual Christians.

Not trying to be arrogant. Sorry you perceive my responses in that way.

Would you try to argue that I'm not "Following the teachings of the Bible"?

Yes. At the very least you would be lacking an understanding about Jesus' teachings. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

I would not be lacking any understanding at all. Like I said above, that very attitude can be nothing more than your own arrogance speaking. That you believe that the Jesus you have created in your mind somehow represents a more accurate picture than the Jesus other people see in these scriptures.

This is precisely an example of the arrogance of individual Christians.

If you say so.

You miss quoted the passage. You missed a key part. Please read Matthew 5:17-18. You need to understand that Jesus did in fact "fulfill" as he explains in verse 17 of that chapter.

That is nonsense. All you are suggesting is that I ignore the verses I like and reject them in favor of the verses YOU PREFER.

I just said you misquoted the passage. Just compare what you wrote to what the passage actually says.

Again, the arrogance of individual Christians to believe that they speak for "The Christ" and everyone who disagrees with THEM has it all wrong.

That's baloney.

ok, if you say so.

These ancient fables are extremely dangerous, in spite of what the motivation behind following them might be.

Your own personal motivation to follow these teachings is actually quite irrelevant.

As is your own personal interpretations of what they might even be instructing people to do.

Please see comments above.

I have seen your comments above and they represent nothing more than your own personal self-importance in believing that you somehow have the "correct' interpretations of scriptures whilst everyone else has it all wrong.

This is precisely an example of the stereotypical arrogance of Christians.

You believe that YOU speak for Christ.

No, actually I rely on scripture. And, I trust God to direct me if I'm in error. I am open to correction via scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I am not however interested in your philosophies.

I will note that I find it peculiar that if a Christian is not able to express his point in a manner befitting the intellectual superiors, then he is simply ignorant and unlearned. If a Christian is able to express exactly what he believes, along with the scriptural support for his foundation, then he is arrogant. Thankfully, Jesus prepares the Christian for this as well (Matthew 11:16-19).

You'll have to excuse me for not taking you the least bit seriously. But this is so typical it's actually quite predicable. You're position does not surprise me in the least. In fact, your position is precisely why Christianity exists as a myriad of disagreeing sects.

No two Christians will even agree with each other on what Jesus meant or stands for.

if you say so.

So your belief that YOU speak for Christ, is neither new nor impressive.

To try to impress you I would have to respect you. Towards me you've spewed hatred and disdain. I'm not sure why. I don't hate you in the least. Obviously I disagree with you.

On the contrary it so typical that it's boring.

It's also extremely hypocritical on your part because you are renouncing homosexuality (something taught in Old Testament) whilst pretending that this view is somehow supported by Jesus.

There's no way that you can support that without being extremely inconsistent and/or hypocritical.

I think you know homosexual sex is a sin. And, I think you know Jesus did not/does not condone sin. Whether or not you accept it is another matter. Your choice.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 34 by noshameinChrist]Where does the bible mention anything about female homosexuality, and/or that it is naughty?

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 34 by noshameinChrist]Where does the bible mention anything about female homosexuality, and/or that it is naughty?

Romans 1: 26 (Roman !:27 is about the males)

Rom:1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom:1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[Goat]

To answer your questions in order:
1. No.
2. No, they are taught what the scriptures teach on the matter.
3. I don't believe people are "innately" homosexual.
.

Yet, one question you do not seem to be able to answer is

When did you choose to be attracted to women, and not men?

Is that innate?

Or , did you have a choice?

[mitty]

[Replying to post 34 by noshameinChrist]Where does the bible mention anything about female homosexuality, and/or that it is naughty?

Romans 1: 26 (Roman !:27 is about the males)

Rom:1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom:1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26 does not mention anything about female homosexuality but only about what the men's women were allowing the men to do to them which Paul was unhappy about, such anal and/or oral sex. Where does Romans 1:26 say that the women burned in lust one toward another, women with women working that which is unseemly. Answer: It doesn't, which is consistent with the total silence about female homosexuality in the rest of the bible, presumably because female homosexuality doesn't involve penetrative sex or the violation of property rights of men, or unless you are suggesting that the women were having penetrative sex with each other. And besides, that's only Paul's view, which is totally different to Jesus' teaching. Paul was intolerant of many things including drunkenness (1Cor 6:10) which starkly contrasts with Jesus who condoned drunkenness (John 2, Matt 11:19).

[Divine Insight]

You asked me what would I do. I just answered your question, and provided a scriptural sample upon which I based my answer. I never said you had to heed my words.

You said, and I quote from your previous post, "I would try to teach you about Jesus Christ, and point out that such killing is not consistent with his teachings (Luke 9:54-56]."

So you did indeed claim to be trying to "teach me" about Jesus Christ.

That is arrogance on your part to assume that I would not know as much about these historical rumors as you believe you know.

Not trying to be arrogant. Sorry you perceive my responses in that way.

I'm sure you're not. Obviously it's just an innate characteristic that you are totally oblivious to. You don't even seem to realize that you are talking down to other people.

To try to impress you I would have to respect you. Towards me you've spewed hatred and disdain. I'm not sure why. I don't hate you in the least. Obviously I disagree with you.

I haven't spewed hatred and disdain toward you. Those again are your own perceptions and judgments.

I simply pointed out the fact that you are arrogant with respect to taking the position that you supposedly know and understand Jesus and I would need to be taught by you to learn how to view Jesus properly according to YOUR personal beliefs of what YOU think Jesus should be.

And as I have pointed out this is extremely typical of followers of this religion. You are certainly not unique in this behavior. A very large number (though certainly not all) Christians believe that their views of Jesus are correct and everyone else has it all wrong.

In fact, I thought I already made this crystal clear by pointing out that historically Christianity has basically been nothing but Christians protesting against each others views for over thousands of years. Even the Catholic Popes take dramatically different views of what the religion and "Christ" should represent and stand for.

And who cares what the Protestants think? They protested against any mortal man speaking on behalf of Jesus anyway so any Protestant who claims to know what Jesus stood for is an extreme hypocrite.

I think you know homosexual sex is a sin. And, I think you know Jesus did not/does not condone sin. Whether or not you accept it is another matter. Your choice.

I know no such thing.

I know there are places in the Old Testament where it claims that the Old Testament God hates homosexuality and has supposedly even commanded that if a man lays with another man as with a woman he should be stoned to death.

But I personally don't believe the Old Testament has anymore credibility than the Greek mythology of Zeus.

I also know that Paul dredged this kind of ignorance up from the Old Testament and regurgitated it in his writings which became part of the New Testament.

But Paul's opinions do not represent the opinions of Jesus, as far as I'm concerned. I also personally feel that Paul was himself quite the bigot based on many of his writings.

I don't believe that Jesus ever even mentioned homosexuality according to the gospel rumors.

I'm not homosexual myself so none of this even matters to me on a personal level. But that's beside the point. I'm still not going to stand by and watch whilst people belittle other people in Jesus' name. Even though I don't believe Jesus was "The Christ" or that there ever was any such thing as a Christ, I still don't like to see people spreading hatred toward other people in the name of false demigods. And branding people as "sinners" is a hateful thing to do IMHO. Even if it is nothing more than a superstitious bigotry.

I can't imagine why any genuinely loving God would care about physical sex. As long as two people genuinely LOVE each other that's all that should matter in the eyes of any truly LOVING God.

Also, two women can't even have sexual intercourse with each other anyway. It's physically impossible. At best they can fondle each other or use fake implements to pretend they are having sexual intercourse. But make-pretend is not the real thing. So it's impossible for women to even be homosexual. At best they can't be homo-intimate. With luck they can bestow upon each other wonderful mind-blowing orgasms. But even that would not be homosexuality.

So this leaves men only who could even conduct a truly homosexual act and even that's in question. And again, what about LOVE? Is love involved?

It would seem to me that if LOVE is involved than any truly LOVING God would give his blessings. After all, LOVE triumphs over all right?

So no, I don't know that homosexuality would be a "sin".

I have no interest in having sex with another man myself so it really doesn't matter to me. But if two men tell me that they are in LOVE with one another who am I to accuse them of being liars? And I'm certainly not going to accuse them of being "sinners". Even according to Jesus that's a big no-no. You aren't supposed to be judging others. If you claim they are sinners then you are judging them to be sinners.

You are judging them to be immoral people who are participating in immoral acts.

That's a judgment.

You are passing MORAL JUDGMENT on these people.

Jesus taught:

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

If you continue to judge others then apparently you too will be judged. Why bother getting yourself in that kind of hot water?

Just don't judge others and you won't be judged.

Following the teachings of Jesus is EASY. I qualify as being perfectly "Christ-like" without even trying.

Unless Jesus is a liar clearly I will not even be judged on judgment day because I judge no one. I will not be condemned because I condemn no one. And I will be forgiven because I forgive everyone.

It's impossible for me to be condemned without Jesus becoming a liar.

But as long as you judge others to be sinners you won't be able to complain when Jesus judges you.

If you love these scriptures so much why don't you pay attention to what they actually have to say?

You could save yourself a lot of hassle on judgement day.

Why bother going around accusing other people of being sinners? What's the point in that?

[noshameinChrist]

You asked me what would I do. I just answered your question, and provided a scriptural sample upon which I based my answer. I never said you had to heed my words.

You said, and I quote from your previous post, "I would try to teach you about Jesus Christ, and point out that such killing is not consistent with his teachings (Luke 9:54-56]."

So you did indeed claim to be trying to "teach me" about Jesus Christ.

That is arrogance on your part to assume that I would not know as much about these historical rumors as you believe you know.

My friend, in your post #26 you said, and I quote, "I could claim to take you up on your intention and grab the Bible and take it literally. I could go out killing witches, heathens, homosexuals, etc. What would you do then?" I responded with what you've quoted above. I did not "assume" anything. I provided you a passage of scripture (Luke 9:54-56) to refute your erroneous notion about what Christ taught. Namely, Jesus never authorized people to go out and kill in the manner you described. I'm sorry if you consider that response arrogant.

Not trying to be arrogant. Sorry you perceive my responses in that way.

I'm sure you're not. Obviously it's just an innate characteristic that you are totally oblivious to. You don't even seem to realize that you are talking down to other people.

Your comment is noted. Again, I apologize if this is what you've perceived. I am going to continue to defend what I believe to be truth, but I will try not to respond in a way that might be viewed as condescending.

In turn I ask that you stop accusing me of harboring "hatred" and "bigotry" unless you can identify words that I have written expressing the same. To my knowledge I have not.

To try to impress you I would have to respect you. Towards me you've spewed hatred and disdain. I'm not sure why. I don't hate you in the least. Obviously I disagree with you.

I haven't spewed hatred and disdain toward you. Those again are your own perceptions and judgments.

I simply pointed out the fact that you are arrogant with respect to taking the position that you supposedly know and understand Jesus and I would need to be taught by you to learn how to view Jesus properly according to YOUR personal beliefs of what YOU think Jesus should be.

I stand by my perception based on what you've written.

And as I have pointed out this is extremely typical of followers of this religion. You are certainly not unique in this behavior. A very large number (though certainly not all) Christians believe that their views of Jesus are correct and everyone else has it all wrong.

The bottom line, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says, Jesus will be the judge of it all (John 12:48).

In fact, I thought I already made this crystal clear by pointing out that historically Christianity has basically been nothing but Christians protesting against each others views for over thousands of years. Even the Catholic Popes take dramatically different views of what the religion and "Christ" should represent and stand for.

And who cares what the Protestants think? They protested against any mortal man speaking on behalf of Jesus anyway so any Protestant who claims to know what Jesus stood for is an extreme hypocrite.

This is your opinion, and you have a right to express it. I have no comment.

I think you know homosexual sex is a sin. And, I think you know Jesus did not/does not condone sin. Whether or not you accept it is another matter. Your choice.

I know no such thing.

I know there are places in the Old Testament where it claims that the Old Testament God hates homosexuality and has supposedly even commanded that if a man lays with another man as with a woman he should be stoned to death.

Doesn't your comment here (referencing Leviticus 20:13 for example) demonstrate that you "know" homosexual sex is a sin? Why did you begin by saying "I know no such thing"? Confusing.

But I personally don't believe the Old Testament has anymore credibility than the Greek mythology of Zeus.

I also know that Paul dredged this kind of ignorance up from the Old Testament and regurgitated it in his writings which became part of the New Testament.

Again, you demonstrate your knowledge, by apparently referring to passages such as Romans 1:27. Whether you believe it or not is your choice.

But Paul's opinions do not represent the opinions of Jesus, as far as I'm concerned. I also personally feel that Paul was himself quite the bigot based on many of his writings.

I don't believe that Jesus ever even mentioned homosexuality according to the gospel rumors.

According to the NT Jesus chose Paul to be a messenger for him (Acts 9:15). He subsequently told Paul that he (Paul) would go to Rome to proclaim the words of Jesus(Acts 23:11). Romans 1:27 was written to the Roman Christians. Is it not reasonable to conclude that passages like Romans 1:27 were approved by Jesus Christ since he chose Paul to speak on his behalf? For me, it is enough. Again, if you choose not to believe then that is your choice.

I'm not homosexual myself so none of this even matters to me on a personal level. But that's beside the point. I'm still not going to stand by and watch whilst people belittle other people in Jesus' name.

Then we're kindred spirits, because I am not going to standby and let anyone defame the word of God by misleading people into the false belief that homosexual sex is not a sin (Jude 1:3). It is sin, and scripture are clear on the matter.

I have belittled no one to my knowledge. If you want to point out where I have, please feel free.

Even though I don't believe Jesus was "The Christ" or that there ever was any such thing as a Christ, I still don't like to see people spreading hatred toward other people in the name of false demigods. And branding people as "sinners" is a hateful thing to do IMHO. Even if it is nothing more than a superstitious bigotry.

What you believe is your choice. But, I believe truth is truth. As I have said, I believe Jesus will be the judge (John 12:48). I personally don't hate anybody. I believe disobedience to God is sin, and as such is very dangerous. I want to encourage people to study scripture and follow God through Jesus Christ (John 14:6). That's my message and I'm sticking to it. No "hatred" here my friend.

I can't imagine why any genuinely loving God would care about physical sex. As long as two people genuinely LOVE each other that's all that should matter in the eyes of any truly LOVING God.

First, I think it to be quite "arrogant" of you to presume to tell God what He should and shouldn't care about. Arrogant and foolish in my opinion. In simple terms, I believe that since God created us then He has the right to direct us. Thus, if he says we should not engage in adultery (whether "love" is involved or not), fornication (whether "love" is involved or not), or homosexual sex (whether "love" is involved or not) it is within his purview to determine. I am not in a position to question the one who created and sustains me. In truth, neither are you!

Also, two women can't even have sexual intercourse with each other anyway. It's physically impossible. At best they can fondle each other or use fake implements to pretend they are having sexual intercourse. But make-pretend is not the real thing. So it's impossible for women to even be homosexual. At best they can't be homo-intimate. With luck they can bestow upon each other wonderful mind-blowing orgasms. But even that would not be homosexuality.

If you say so. I disagree. Sexual contact constitutes sex, not just penetration by a man's body part.

So this leaves men only who could even conduct a truly homosexual act and even that's in question. And again, what about LOVE? Is love involved?

It would seem to me that if LOVE is involved than any truly LOVING God would give his blessings. After all, LOVE triumphs over all right?

In that case you necessarily assert that polygamy, adultery, fornication, incest, and a host of other relationships involving sex are OK as long as the two adults involved LOVE each other. I personally think you know better than that.

So no, I don't know that homosexuality would be a "sin".

Sure you do. You've already pointed out your knowledge. Again, it is your choice whether or not to accept it.

I can't imagine why any genuinely loving God would care about physical sex. As long as two people genuinely LOVE each other that's all that should matter in the eyes of any truly LOVING God.

First, I think it to be quite "arrogant" of you to presume to tell God what He should and shouldn't care about. Arrogant and foolish in my opinion. In simple terms, I believe that since God created us then He has the right to direct us. Thus, if he says we should not engage in adultery (whether "love" is involved or not), fornication (whether "love" is involved or not), or homosexual sex (whether "love" is involved or not) it is within his purview to determine. I am not in a position to question the one who created and sustains me. In truth, neither are you!

Also, two women can't even have sexual intercourse with each other anyway. It's physically impossible. At best they can fondle each other or use fake implements to pretend they are having sexual intercourse. But make-pretend is not the real thing. So it's impossible for women to even be homosexual. At best they can't be homo-intimate. With luck they can bestow upon each other wonderful mind-blowing orgasms. But even that would not be homosexuality.

If you say so. I disagree. Sexual contact constitutes sex, not just penetration by a man's body part.

So this leaves men only who could even conduct a truly homosexual act and even that's in question. And again, what about LOVE? Is love involved?

It would seem to me that if LOVE is involved than any truly LOVING God would give his blessings. After all, LOVE triumphs over all right?

In that case you necessarily assert that polygamy, adultery, fornication, incest, and a host of other relationships involving sex are OK as long as the two adults involved LOVE each other. I personally think you know better than that.

So no, I don't know that homosexuality would be a "sin".

Sure you do. You've already pointed out your knowledge. Again, it is your choice whether or not to accept it.

I have no interest in having sex with another man myself so it really doesn't matter to me. But if two men tell me that they are in LOVE with one another who am I to accuse them of being liars? And I'm certainly not going to accuse them of being "sinners". Even according to Jesus that's a big no-no. You aren't supposed to be judging others. If you claim they are sinners then you are judging them to be sinners.

You are judging them to be immoral people who are participating in immoral acts.

That's a judgment.

You are passing MORAL JUDGMENT on these people.

No. What I tell people is to follow God through Jesus. If a person is doing something (adultery, fornication, etc) that is categorized as a sin in scripture, then I point out this fact. This is the case with homosexual sex. According to scripture it is a sin. Ultimatley, I am not, nor do I have the authority, to condemn (judge) anyone. That is not my job. As stated, Jesus will do that in time (John 12:48; 2 Tim 4:1)

Jesus taught:

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

True.

If you continue to judge others then apparently you too will be judged. Why bother getting yourself in that kind of hot water?

Just don't judge others and you won't be judged.

I happen to agree with you here. However, I think fundamentally your use of the word "judge" is wrong. Pointing out sin according to scripture, and encouraging people to avoid it is not judging. It is admonishing and warning about consequences. (Mark 16:15-16; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Following the teachings of Jesus is EASY. I qualify as being perfectly "Christ-like" without even trying.

Unless Jesus is a liar clearly I will not even be judged on judgment day because I judge no one. I will not be condemned because I condemn no one. And I will be forgiven because I forgive everyone.

It's impossible for me to be condemned without Jesus becoming a liar.

Sorry, but I thought you said you didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ. Please read Mark 16:15-16.

But as long as you judge others to be sinners you won't be able to complain when Jesus judges you.

If you love these scriptures so much why don't you pay attention to what they actually have to say?

You could save yourself a lot of hassle on judgement day.

I judge no one, as I have said. That is not my role. I do love God's word, and I strive daily to live according to Christ's teachings. Thanks for the reminder.