John, people like you are difficult to have a dialog with, because you make statements regarding my beliefs that are unfounded, such as your statement about the complete criteria for an acceptable relationship being a "loving and committed" relationship, which is not what I have said. I speak of love and commitment, and I also speak of other components as well, such as one's conscience, personal relationship with God, which is who we are ultimately accountable to, and that all things will be in the light. The other reason you are difficult to have a cohesive dialog with, is because you feel that your condemnation is endorsed by God, while you give no argument in response to the truths that I have pointed out from God's Word. I'll give my answer to you one point at a time.

1. Your declaration that you could change your sexual orientation, based on "sexual desires of the moment" is, in my view, a statement that you do not cherish what you have felt to be your sexual orientation, as a heterosexual man. Possibly not in terms of your religious beliefs, as I see now from your condemning statements, but in terms of your sexual orientation, it is all completely interchangeable to you. You are making the statement that you don't feel that you have a gift of nature regarding women, that is incomparable in your desire for a woman, and you could have just as intimate and romantic of a relationship with a man. I would presume this is on all levels of intimacy, based on the more complete argument you are making. You are expressing yourself to be potentially bisexual in nature, and that you believe that basically all people are, and if they do not understand or believe this, they are lacking sufficient introspection. I completely disagree with your statements, and I have no doubt that probably most people would not consider their deeply-felt sexual preference to be interchangeable. It is a very significant part of our nature. This is from my knowledge of myself, which is based on my own orientation, and is evidenced dating back to my childhood in terms of gender-related behaviors and preferences, as with I believe most people who feel that they were born with either a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation. This is also something that parents can testify to, regarding their knowledge of their children that they raised. You are entitled to your beliefs about your sexual orientation; I don't agree with it as a principle. I'll have to look for a study to see if many people feel the way you do.

2. You are expressing what you believe the Bible states in a very limited manner. I don't believe I have done that in my presentation of my beliefs. I have not stated that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, so representing my belief as being that "the Bible does not condemn homosexuality" and calling this "ridiculous" is unfounded and aimed at a shallow and limited mindset regarding the Bible. If this is how you function in your judgments of people, it is likely that you will be found to be hypocritical in your application of Scriptural laws in your own personal life. I've explained all of this pretty thoroughly, and you might want to address the actual discussion and give an answer for your beliefs on these complexities of the Bible. To clarify, my belief is that homosexuality being spoken of as condemned, is stated within an expressed context, and is related to the sinful qualities that I have cited from Scripture. This context, Paul's explanation of the type of person he condemned, is all prolifically there in Scripture. I didn't make it up.

3. The individual that you say "supports my overall position," and who is also saying that "the conservatives are more or less right about the Bible"...obviously does not support my overall position. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the "conservative's" presentation of the Bible. (I'm not seeing them carrying out the laws of Scripture...the ones they apparently consider to be not the essence of righteousness, and not reasonable to be taken and applied at face value, as the words of Christ, while requiring this of the gay believer.) There is much that has been collectively ignored, which I have written extensively about, and which you do not address to any degree at all.

4. You don't understand why I would consider incest to be immoral, and you don't see why they could not have a sexual relationship that is before God and is in the light? I've never encountered a person for whom this is a desire or an issue ever in my life. Have you ever heard of someone saying, "This is my brother, who is also my life-partner."? This is not an issue in the church, or anywhere else, and it is self-explanatory why it is not and never will be. This renders it not "in the light," or before God. Other than something that might occur on the frequency of serial killing, this is not something that people want at all, and for reasons that are rooted deeply in our beings. My second answer is that God is the Judge, and this is not a concern of mine. Also, you are appealing to the Law, but I didn't obtain my belief on this from the Mosaic Law. His law is written on our hearts now, and this is something we understand instinctively.

5. I'm "aggressively trying to avoid the dos and don'ts of Scripture?" I don't know on what basis you believe you can make this judgment of me. God is the Judge of my heart, and this is a false and baseless judgment. I have not tried to avoid anything; I am writing about many compelling issues of Scripture, and it is based on verifiable truths of Scripture. Again, you might want to give an answer for your beliefs, in terms of the actual dialog and biblical truths that I have raised for discussion.

6. "You appear to be randomly cutting out all things that sound like law and calling them legalism." If you see a "random cutting out" of things that sound like law, you haven't read anything that I have written with any kind of thoughtfulness. I explained my understanding of "legalism," when I said that it is a use of law that takes nothing else into consideration but the written law, and applies laws simply on the basis that it is written in Scripture. Jesus Himself spoke against this use of the Law in several ways. This is also something that is imposed on other people, and is a principle that those who do this imposing do not live by for themselves. Many laws have no place in the function of the Christian faith.

You said, "There is nothing wrong with following commands as long as you do not believe that you are somehow justifying yourself by following them (1John 5:3f)." I haven't seen this practiced in Christianity, to blindly follow what you do not concur with in your spirit and your heart, as a born-again believer in Christ, to be inherent to righteousness. That is a main part of the substance of this discussion. You haven't addressed this, but perhaps you will back up your argument and address these truths and realities, for the sake of integrity.

Also to note, His commandments are "not burdensome," because His law is to love one another, and this is something we grow into through a relationship with Him, and in the growth of the fruits of the Spirit. We are a new creation in Him. His laws of love are found in the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament states the law of "love" to be the "fulfillment of His law." We are to "owe nothing to anyone except to love one another." (Romans 13:8) His law under the new covenant is not the body of Mosaic laws; it is only to place your trust in Christ, and to love your neighbor as yourself (and a couple of other things that He asked of us, e.g. water baptism, and communion). I agree that His law is not burdensome, if His spirit is in us. This is not quite the case, to say that "His laws are not burdensome," in viewing gender statements, apart from any context, as the law of God.

John, what is your explanation for why God set up laws in the Old Testament that had the "death penalty" and the word "abomination" attached to them, that are no longer "laws" in the faith today according to the New Testament? Does this have no meaning in our understanding of how He set up His laws, and the principles of the new covenant? Why do you believe that this particular law is in a different category, and reflects inherent truth apart from any context, unlike these other laws that I pointed out, and He would condemn a believing soul to hell based on gender issues, as Paul said in his understanding of the type of person who engaged in this? If this is how you understand God, you are welcome to your beliefs. This is not how I understand the God of Scripture, who established a complex religion in the Old Testament, and then simplified it in the New Testament to be "fulfilled in a word." We will all stand before God. My beliefs are based on Scripture, as I understand the bigger picture to be clearly presented in His Word.

7. As to your last point, if someone is going outside of their marriage to be with someone else, in a relationship that they are promising commitment to, then it is possible to claim a commitment of love to the second party. You said "committed," which means they will always be together, you didn't say "exclusive." You should be clear on how you are claiming to represent the totality of my beliefs, which are not what I have claimed on either count.

Also, the "laws that I appeal to" are the laws of love, as explained by Paul, when he spoke of the principles of how law functions under the new covenant. You must have missed all of these aspects of how I have presented my beliefs.

8. As far as your statement that, those who believe God does accept His gay and lesbian children, who live for Him and have love for God and for humanity, as claiming to be "a prophetic voice that is taking its starting point with the Bible and are moving on from there"...it seems to be the case, that the people who do not live by all of the laws of the Bible, even if you only want to count the New Testament, do not bother to give a reasonable explanation for their dismissal of laws, they just simply don't talk about it (which is approval by popular opinion). Paul stated that "women who make a claim to godliness, are not to wear gold, pearls, braids, or expensive dresses"...and he also said that we are not to "think beyond what is written." I do believe we need to think reasonably, and seek to understand what was intended in some of these statements. There is a basis for liberty, and it seems to me to be explained well in Scripture.

And before you say that I am picking and choosing what I am going to accept from the writings of Paul, let me address this by explaining, again, that there is a basis for concurring with the spiritual principles that he spoke of, as a born-again believer who has the spirit of Christ in them, and distinguishing this from laws given by Paul. I do believe he was capable of speaking not in complete terms, in some of the statements and requirements that he gave, and I believe I have proven this well.

I'm pretty sure this concludes my portion of the debate here, and if I answer further any point that John or anyone else may make, I will be brief. I'll reply to Jim soon, and I appreciate his story very much. And Dr. Bock, thank you for allowing this dialog on your blog.