A question to all Christians

[Cecilie1200]

The romans didn't need a legal reason to kill jesus. They weren't a very democratic and benevolent group.

Actually, they did need a legal reason, because they were generally pretty good about abiding by their own laws and policies. That's how they remained such a powerful, far-flung empire for so long. Admittedly, they weren't the kindest of taskmasters, but they kept order well. In this case, their policy was to default to the laws and leaders of the governed areas in order to keep peace. The Jewish leaders insisted, so the Romans carried out their policy. But it's unlikely the Romans would have killed Him just for the hell of it.

The Romans were vicious oppressors of the jews. They cared nothing about jewish opinion.

They remained a powerful empire by vicously dealing with any resistance.

Good grief, yeah right default to the laws of the jews. How utterly rediculous.

You REALLY need some history instruction. The Romans were not the vicious, lawless tyrants you're dying to believe they were. And it's well-known that the Romans DID, in fact, allow their conquered territories to continue their own laws and ways of life, by and large, with just the addition of certain Roman laws, like the ever-important taxes. It's a lot easier to prevent uprisings from occurring than to "viciously deal with" them when they happen. Duhhh.

Roman Expansion 400 BC - 500 AD

Although the upper classes of the conquered areas usually adjusted to the Roman way of life, conquered people were generally allowed to continue living as they had before the Romans came to power. As a result, a mixture of Roman and native culture existed in many regions.

Cripes. The Roman Empire is famous in history for both the order of its rule and for the legal traditions it handed down to all the governments that came after it, and you want to tell us that they were bunch of lawless, rampaging barbarians who just did whatever the hell they pleased, willy nilly. Yeah, that's really the way one achieves an empire that lasts centuries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know what I am really but people, and I use the term loosely, such as the Phelps family who scream "EVIL" at anybody who is gay are nothing but bigots.

Well, THAT is certainly useless to the topic at hand.

 

[AllieBaba]

Deutronomy 4

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Jesus Christ is "The Word".

 

[CMike]

We are talking about Romans and jews. This is actually from a christian site. I have little time

ROMAN RULE IN ISRAEL - Awesome Stories

Rome appointed Herod King of Judea in 40 BC. Herod’s only path to power was as king because as a converted Jew (he and his family were Edomites), he could never be a Jewish priest. His loyalty was to Rome, even though he built many projects in Judea and reconstructed the Jewish temple (sometimes referred to as the Second Temple) in Jerusalem in 19 BC. He built a famous city on the Mediterranean - with an impressive artificial harbor - and named it Caesarea in honor of his ally Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler.

When Herod died, in 4 BC, Roman oppression of the Jews worsened dramatically. By 6 AD, Judea was a Roman province where the tax burden imposed on the Jews became nearly unbearable. Although Roman rulers (called Procurators) ran the country, Judea was one province Rome could not totally tame absent a very heavy hand.

 

[del]

We are talking about Romans and jews. This is actually from a christian site. I have little time

ROMAN RULE IN ISRAEL - Awesome Stories

Rome appointed Herod King of Judea in 40 BC. Herod’s only path to power was as king because as a converted Jew (he and his family were Edomites), he could never be a Jewish priest. His loyalty was to Rome, even though he built many projects in Judea and reconstructed the Jewish temple (sometimes referred to as the Second Temple) in Jerusalem in 19 BC. He built a famous city on the Mediterranean - with an impressive artificial harbor - and named it Caesarea in honor of his ally Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler.

When Herod died, in 4 BC, Roman oppression of the Jews worsened dramatically. By 6 AD, Judea was a Roman province where the tax burden imposed on the Jews became nearly unbearable. Although Roman rulers (called Procurators) ran the country, Judea was one province Rome could not totally tame absent a very heavy hand.

awesome stories? the story place of the web?

 

[AllieBaba]

"ABSENT" a very heavy hand.

 

[CMike]

Roman Rule

Ten years after Herod's death (4 BCE), Judea came under direct Roman administration. Growing anger against increased Roman suppression of Jewish life resulted in sporadic violence which esclated into a full-scale revolt in 66 CE. Superior Roman forces led by Titus were finally victorious, razing Jerusalem to the ground (70 CE) and defeating the last Jewish outpost at Masada (73 CE).
The total destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was catastrophic for the Jewish people. According to the contemporary historian Josephus Flavius, hundreds of thousands of Jews perished in the siege of Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country, and many thousands more were sold into slavery.

A last brief period of Jewish sovereignty in ancient times followed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), during which Jerusalem and Judea were regained. However, given the overwhelming power of the Romans, the outcome was inevitable. Three years later, in conformity with Roman custom, Jerusalem was "plowed up with a yoke of oxen," Judea was renamed Palaestinia and Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are talking about Romans and jews. This is actually from a christian site. I have little time

ROMAN RULE IN ISRAEL - Awesome Stories

Rome appointed Herod King of Judea in 40 BC. Herod’s only path to power was as king because as a converted Jew (he and his family were Edomites), he could never be a Jewish priest. His loyalty was to Rome, even though he built many projects in Judea and reconstructed the Jewish temple (sometimes referred to as the Second Temple) in Jerusalem in 19 BC. He built a famous city on the Mediterranean - with an impressive artificial harbor - and named it Caesarea in honor of his ally Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler.

When Herod died, in 4 BC, Roman oppression of the Jews worsened dramatically. By 6 AD, Judea was a Roman province where the tax burden imposed on the Jews became nearly unbearable. Although Roman rulers (called Procurators) ran the country, Judea was one province Rome could not totally tame absent a very heavy hand.

Of course, you missed the part where the Jews lived quite peacefully under Roman rule for a long time, being allowed to practice their own religion and even having their synagogues legally considered as centers of learning in order to bypass the Roman law against secret societies. It was only after Judea erupted into rebellion and had to be suppressed that Roman rule in that area became oppressive. Interestingly, several Roman governors of the area were sent home in disgrace for mismanaging Judea and being too oppressive, thereby fomenting the rebellion.

Point still stands. Rome was interested in peaceful rule as much as possible, and they mostly understood that that was accomplished by leaving conquered peoples to their own devices as much as they could.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Herod was a successful client king, which meant that as long as he paid tribute to Rome and was on the correct side of any kind of Roman fracas, he protected the political independence and liberty of Jews in Israel. And... he did that very well. He also advertised the success and wealth of his own regime and the importance of his people by having an incredibly ambitious program of building ... some of the most beautiful buildings that we have still existing in the land of Israel were done under Herod. Of course, his great architectural gift to posterity was what he did with the Temple in Jerusalem."

"By rebuilding the Temple ... refurbishing it ... making it enormous and really one of the architectural marvels of the ancient world, he not only increased enormously the religious prestige of Judaism, but , if political history is in a sense the history of real estate development, he enabled Judea to have a positive balance of trade."
FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians : a portrait of jesus' world : jews and the roman empire| PBS

 

[CMike]

We are talking about Romans and jews. This is actually from a christian site. I have little time

ROMAN RULE IN ISRAEL - Awesome Stories

Rome appointed Herod King of Judea in 40 BC. Herod’s only path to power was as king because as a converted Jew (he and his family were Edomites), he could never be a Jewish priest. His loyalty was to Rome, even though he built many projects in Judea and reconstructed the Jewish temple (sometimes referred to as the Second Temple) in Jerusalem in 19 BC. He built a famous city on the Mediterranean - with an impressive artificial harbor - and named it Caesarea in honor of his ally Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler.

When Herod died, in 4 BC, Roman oppression of the Jews worsened dramatically. By 6 AD, Judea was a Roman province where the tax burden imposed on the Jews became nearly unbearable. Although Roman rulers (called Procurators) ran the country, Judea was one province Rome could not totally tame absent a very heavy hand.

awesome stories? the story place of the web?

Yeah...it's a christian site.

 

[CMike]

We are talking about Romans and jews. This is actually from a christian site. I have little time

ROMAN RULE IN ISRAEL - Awesome Stories

Rome appointed Herod King of Judea in 40 BC. Herod’s only path to power was as king because as a converted Jew (he and his family were Edomites), he could never be a Jewish priest. His loyalty was to Rome, even though he built many projects in Judea and reconstructed the Jewish temple (sometimes referred to as the Second Temple) in Jerusalem in 19 BC. He built a famous city on the Mediterranean - with an impressive artificial harbor - and named it Caesarea in honor of his ally Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler.

When Herod died, in 4 BC, Roman oppression of the Jews worsened dramatically. By 6 AD, Judea was a Roman province where the tax burden imposed on the Jews became nearly unbearable. Although Roman rulers (called Procurators) ran the country, Judea was one province Rome could not totally tame absent a very heavy hand.

Of course, you missed the part where the Jews lived quite peacefully under Roman rule for a long time, being allowed to practice their own religion and even having their synagogues legally considered as centers of learning in order to bypass the Roman law against secret societies. It was only after Judea erupted into rebellion and had to be suppressed that Roman rule in that area became oppressive. Interestingly, several Roman governors of the area were sent home in disgrace for mismanaging Judea and being too oppressive, thereby fomenting the rebellion.

Point still stands. Rome was interested in peaceful rule as much as possible, and they mostly understood that that was accomplished by leaving conquered peoples to their own devices as much as they could.

Once again, it's all the jews' fault for rising in rebellion

They rose in rebellion because they were being surpressed and oppressed by the romans.

 

[CMike]

"Herod was a successful client king, which meant that as long as he paid tribute to Rome and was on the correct side of any kind of Roman fracas, he protected the political independence and liberty of Jews in Israel. And... he did that very well. He also advertised the success and wealth of his own regime and the importance of his people by having an incredibly ambitious program of building ... some of the most beautiful buildings that we have still existing in the land of Israel were done under Herod. Of course, his great architectural gift to posterity was what he did with the Temple in Jerusalem."

"By rebuilding the Temple ... refurbishing it ... making it enormous and really one of the architectural marvels of the ancient world, he not only increased enormously the religious prestige of Judaism, but , if political history is in a sense the history of real estate development, he enabled Judea to have a positive balance of trade."
FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians : a portrait of jesus' world : jews and the roman empire| PBS

Once again, the christian sites...

The generous, benevolent, kind, roman oppressors, while the jews' for no reason rose in rebellion.

I think I am going to barf.

 

[AllieBaba]

PBS is hardly a Christian site.

 

[del]

We are talking about Romans and jews. This is actually from a christian site. I have little time

ROMAN RULE IN ISRAEL - Awesome Stories

Rome appointed Herod King of Judea in 40 BC. Herod’s only path to power was as king because as a converted Jew (he and his family were Edomites), he could never be a Jewish priest. His loyalty was to Rome, even though he built many projects in Judea and reconstructed the Jewish temple (sometimes referred to as the Second Temple) in Jerusalem in 19 BC. He built a famous city on the Mediterranean - with an impressive artificial harbor - and named it Caesarea in honor of his ally Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler.

When Herod died, in 4 BC, Roman oppression of the Jews worsened dramatically. By 6 AD, Judea was a Roman province where the tax burden imposed on the Jews became nearly unbearable. Although Roman rulers (called Procurators) ran the country, Judea was one province Rome could not totally tame absent a very heavy hand.

awesome stories? the story place of the web?

Yeah...it's a christian site.

and? is that of some significance? should i take it more seriously because it's christian? does it counter that other joke of a link you posted? when will you post the mormon take?

 

[rdean]

With the ascension of the Christian Religion all around the Mediterranean, over time, churches started to drift away. Church leaders met and wrote the Bible over many years to codify their religion to keep it from breaking up into different sects. They debated what would be in the Bible, whether God would be a wrathful God or a just God, or compassionate. They decided which stories and fables to include in the Bible.
Now the American Evangelicals have drifted away from the original "middle eastern" religion. They have an enormous emphasis on sex and much less interest in "social justice". They claim to follow Jesus, who, as far as I know, never mentioned homosexuals. Vilifying gays seems to be a central tenant to evangelical Christianity.
Worse, they have embraced this "philosophy of greed" expounded by American Conservatives.
It makes you wonder, if this Jesus deity actually showed up in America today, with his "middle eastern" roots and his dark looks, would he be accepted by American Evangelicals? I suspect not.
And no one in the middle east looks anything like this:

 

[AllieBaba]

Evangelicals know a lot more than you do about the history of the middle east, and about the characteristics of Christ.

When he comes back he will speak a WORD and all his enemies will die. I don't think he's too worried about preconceived ideas regarding his looks.

 

[Gadawg73]

My church is an accepting and open church.We do not judge anyone and state they are an abomination for their beliefs or sexual orientation. We find no where in The Bible where Jesus stated anything bad about gays.
Why do many of you claim we are wrong when Jesus is the reason we celebrate life?
Why are all of you so infatuated with someone else's sex life?
What does that have to do with being a Christian? How is it being Christlike condemning gay folks?

Since this is an open question to all Christians, I can answer even though my answer is not relevant.

Why do many of you claim we are wrong when Jesus is the reason we celebrate life?

I don't.

Why are all of you so infatuated with someone else's sex life?

I'm not.

What does that have to do with being a Christian? How is it being Christlike condemning gay folks?

Nothing. It's not.

Question to you. Why are you assuming that all Christians (other than yourself, of course) demonstrate these assumed characteristics? Why are you so infatuated with someone else's faith?

I am asking the same question as you.

 

[frazzledgear]

Actually jesus broke the laws of G-D. He violated perhaps the most serious law that G-D gave.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 (Parshah Re'eh) - Deuteronomy - Torah - Bible
5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him. ה. אַחֲרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֹתוֹ תִירָאוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּבְקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹדוּ וּבוֹ תִדְבָּקוּן:

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst. ו. וְהַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ חֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא יוּמָת כִּי דִבֶּר סָרָה עַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְהַפֹּדְךָ מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:

7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known." ז. כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ אוֹ בִנְךָ אוֹ בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:

8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; ח. מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ:

9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him. ט. לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו:

10. But you shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. י. כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה:

11. And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. יא. וּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת כִּי בִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:

12. And all Israel shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer do any evil such as this in your midst.

Well as absurd as it is; this is actually the case made by the Pharisees...

It's the same obtuse attitude and rejection of common sense that kept Jews in denial in Germany for a decade prior to being rounded up and slaughtered; and it's the same counter-productive, faux-piety which forces Liberal Israelis to chronically expect Palestinians might actually honor their agreement...

Christ's advocated for common sense; sound, sustainable natural principles; which by it's very essence was a threat to the Jewish power structure... and that community worked pretty much the way this cyber-community works...

You're in violation of "the Law" when those in Power SAY you're in violation of the law...

Two things here... such laws are invalid... as they serve the interests of those in power; and secondly as a result... such law can not serve justice.

So it's fair to say that Christ did violate the 'law'... and it's fair to say that he did not. The Law of the Jewish Elite was irrelevant to God and his purpose; and it's validity was in keeping with the distinction beteen the LAW of a web-forum and the commandments of that power structure and God's law or even the standing legal code of whatever culture ya happen to be in at the moment.

If that analogy doesn't work... then try any syndicate... you're living in a neighborhood; the local gang controls the streets... you begin to walk around claiming to be the new gang leader... egregeously violating the law of the local gang. So to keep things 'legal like' they turn ya in to the local cops... who are just as crooked as the gang; and they send ya down the river.

Did ya break the law? Sure... was the law ya supposedly broke a just law? Nope... thus it wasn't a valid law.

You are nuts.

It's really arrogant how some christians think they know jewish law better than jews who have been studying it for about 2,000 years.

Jewish law is based on the Torah. What I quoted you was directly from the Torah. That is the law G-D gave to the jews.

Jesus claimed to be a divine being. He claimed that jews can only get to G-D through him.

That is a direct contradiction to at least 30 passages where G-D said only to rely on him.

Worshipping jesus, according to the Torah, is basically the same thing as worshipping a golden calf.

It's idol worship. A violation of the ten commandments and the 7 laws given to Noach.

You don't make as much sense as you think on this one. Jesus violated one of the constant messages He spread in the first place -You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him? Any clue how many times Jesus said this?

There are more than 400 prophesies about the Jewish Messiah in the Old Testament -and you undoubtedly know that for the first 400 years Christians were nearly all Jews. Until the majority of followers were not originally Jews but converted gentiles which did not happen until centuries later, Christianity was considered to be a Jewish sect and not a separate religion. It is also true that some Talmudic scholars have sought to reinterpret what is meant by certain verses in order to justify how Jesus did NOT fulfill those after all -and when those reinterpretations took place is known. Don't get me wrong -I expect a Jew to remain a Jew and NOT accept what I say here. Just like it would be pretty silly if you expect any Christian to suddenly change their mind because of anything you may say here.

I think you are wrong just as surely as you think I am wrong -but I am a gentile and not one of God's chosen people and your religion carries no message of redemption for the likes of me. There is no proselytizing in Judaism and conversion is discouraged so the religion itself offers me as a gentile -nothing. Totally unlike what Jesus tells me and indeed has proven to me to be true about where and how to find my salvation. Where as a gentile do I find that in Judaism? Jesus said that salvation is possible for ALL who ASK for it and that my faith, not an accident of birth -can and will assure my salvation.

The Jews expect a Messiah -yet their rejection of Him is also prophesied. Can't have it both ways on this one trying to explain why Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah at the same time what you have written indicates the justifications used to reject the Messiah will always be used to reject the Messiah no matter what -all while that rejection is prophesied anyway.

As I said, there are more than 400 Messianic prophesies in the Old Testament most of which are out human control -yet all fulfilled by Jesus. Even as I am also aware of the vigorous efforts by Jewish scholars to insist certain of these must be interpreted differently even from the way they used to be as a means of justifying for Jews why they can't possibly refer to Jesus. But just as YOU would accept that -I as a Christian totally reject that. Even if we throw out every prophesy scholars insist must be interpreted in a way that rules out Jesus -that leaves more than 370 prophesies that were made 400-1000 years before His birth that were fulfilled by Jesus. The entire list of these prophesies as well as the specific verses regarding when Jesus fulfilled them is available all over the place and I'm not going to repeat each and every one of them now. But among these prophesies are that He would be beaten, mocked and spat upon, hated without justification, that He would perform miraculous healings, that His first spiritual work would occur in Galilee. That men would gamble for his clothing, He would be given vinegar and gall to drink, that He would be crucified with criminals but his bones not broken (the crucified typically had their legs broken to speed up death), that He would be born of a virgin, that He would be betrayed by a friend, sold out for 30 pieces of silver, that those 30 pieces of silver would then be used to buy a potter's field, that his hands and feet would be pierced and on and on. And that He would bring a message of redemption for gentiles. Until Jesus there was no redemption believed to be possible for gentiles.

While Jews give their rationale for rejecting the only person to ever fulfill all Messianic prophecies, the idea that someone could fulfill them all and NOT be the Messiah is what Christians reject. The whole point of why these prophesies were even made was so that the Messiah would be recognized and just not knowing it was He could not be used as an excuse for His rejection -even as this rejection was also prophesied. You were taught the reasons to believe that Jews weren't wrong about that rejection and Christianity teaches that rejection is part and parcel of God's will until the time He decides to remove the scales from their eyes -upon which they will weep for the One who was pierced and rejected by them. So there really is no point in trying to argue this one with each other at all since the position of each side will only harden and confirm what they already believe in the first place.

As a Christian I believe the path for Jews is different from the one for non-Jews. I know that the Jews will always be God's chosen people and that I will never be counted among that number since I was not born a Jew. My path to come to know, follow and cleave to God and keep His law must by its very definition -be a totally different one then.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Clueless about the contents of the Bible? LOL
I took Bible classes all through private and military school asit was mandatory.
I place people and being Christlike over a book that states YOU are a sinner for eating a pork BBQ sandwich, shrimp or oysters.
The Bible is full of inacurracies. Try getting some objective education for a change. Government schools will not get you where you obviously need to be.
Get used to it. Our churches are GROWING while others are losing members.
Hate sucks.

Let me get this straight. You believe in a book that you believe is inacurate. LOL

No wonder why people laugh at Christians.

It would help your credibility if you could provide some evidence where I stated what you claim.
To date you are at zero. The good news is there is only way to go and that is up.

I get my credibility from above; not fom you. As for evidence, maybe read your own words. You shouldn't have to look too far either. Hint: it is within this set of quotes.

 

[tigerbob]

My church is an accepting and open church.We do not judge anyone and state they are an abomination for their beliefs or sexual orientation. We find no where in The Bible where Jesus stated anything bad about gays.
Why do many of you claim we are wrong when Jesus is the reason we celebrate life?
Why are all of you so infatuated with someone else's sex life?
What does that have to do with being a Christian? How is it being Christlike condemning gay folks?

Since this is an open question to all Christians, I can answer even though my answer is not relevant.


I don't.


I'm not.

What does that have to do with being a Christian? How is it being Christlike condemning gay folks?

Nothing. It's not.

Question to you. Why are you assuming that all Christians (other than yourself, of course) demonstrate these assumed characteristics? Why are you so infatuated with someone else's faith?

I am asking the same question as you.

No, you're not.

You're asking a question to a group of people that you believe have certain prejudices. I'm asking a question to you specifically about why you believe they all have those prejudices.

Indeed, your assumptions about the views and beliefs of a group of people could equally be called a prejudice.

So, not really the same question at all.

And, by the way, you haven't answered it.