You appear to be speaking for all Christians simply by stating it as "fact".
Yes, appearances can be deceiving. Yet, the general application is true if one believes the Bible. Hence, I am confident I am able to make such a statement. Christians - as defined by the Bible do not hate homosexuals. One, because Jesus said "love your enemies" and secondly, Peter explains that Christians who hate their brothers are not really Christians. I am comfortable with my position.
The Bible is full of many kinds of genre so it is ridiculous to use it in exactly the same manner throughout. Interestingly, it tends to be the Christian who attempts to use it properly while the anti-Christian often (not always) chooses to interpret it and use it literally.
It is not an opinion that the bible is full of different genres. It is a fact. I agree that it is my opinion that anti-Christians tend to be literalistic. You are an example of this. So is Brother ??? So is Willows. So are many other atheists who utilise the early five books of the OT. Your understanding of the Bible is not consistent with any credible scholar so I take not much from your comments. Unlike you, I do have professional credibility in the OT and the NT scriptures. You have NOT read widely and appear to read very narrowly.
Who ....? Why....? What ? if so, what and why?
Posing questions of your own on someone else' thread go nowhere near answering the question posed by the OP
I am not posing questions at large, my point was people who want to understand the Bible need to ask questions.
The OT law for example was written to the people of Israel,[....................] It was not written to Christians in that same sense.
It was not written for Christians at all. I have stated many times here, that, the early Christians lumbered themselves with the OT god and the OT scriptures when they adopted a religion that they had absolutely no understanding of. And now, the modern Christian has to try and explain away all these vile OT scriptures and explain away all the violence meted out by this OT god.
That is your opinion. The OT was written to Israel in the first instance. Nevertheless, the rest of your argument relies on a premise that God the Holy Spirit did not write the Christians or people who belong to God. It is your opinion. nothing more. I don't have to explain anything away. I have said that the OT is relevant - yet I also accept that intervening events such as the ADVENT of Christ is significant. That is not explaining anything away - simply acknowledging that the Messiah has arrived and that this means something. Every Jew in our world today would acknowledge the same thing. When the messiah does appear - it means something. What that might mean is always going to be up to discussion - but his appearance DEFINETLY means something and therefore must do something.
They have to invent excuses, change words, and whole meanings of verses and downright lie, to protect, shield and defend the actions of this self confessed violent, jealous god of war and murder.
Nonsense. I have no issue with the FACT that the God of the OT did things and said things which go against everything known in the 20th and 21st Century. I don't happen to hold to the fallacy, like you do, that our modern world knows everything. For instance I don't have a particular care for whether God committed genocide or not or whether he supports or condones slavery. These are modern issues - not historical issues. I liken them to what some call "first world problems". I like the fact that God is jealous. I like the fact that he destroys the wicked. I don't have an issue with the notion of HELL. Of course people in our soft 21st century would probably soil their pants at the thought. PLEASE STOP assuming you know me or CHRISTIANS. You clearly have no idea what we think or you would stop making such stupid comments.
But as someone has already pointed out ; The Christian faith states that Jesus is god and god wrote "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13). This is not to mention that Jesus states that has not come to change the "law" Matthew 5:17.
Obviously someone who has no theological training is going to read the English and thinks they understand everything. I have explained to you on other occasions that the Hebrew reads differently but you in your arrogance always thinks I am just avoiding the truth. SURELY in the above sentence in the Hebrews actually refers to the idiom of "dying you shall die". But rather than accept the idiom or look at the original you ASSUME like many this means other than what it does. This is a covenantal expression. It is talking about covenantal death, just like in Genesis.
Jesus did not come to change the law. And I say unequivocally he did not change the law. He might have clarified it in some ways but his point was mostly to state that it was the substance of the law that counts. I say he filled out the law. He said what was left out. What was omitted - because of people's natural tendency to minimise things. Take the example of adultery. He said it was more than about physical stuff - but that it related to how people think about it. And in relation to murder - it was more that the actual killing of someone - Hence - to call someone stupid - reflected more fully that it is the image of God that was the issue.
The thing about sin is - who gets to define what it is?
Ask a Christian, ask a Jew and ask a Muslim, they will all have their own different interpretations and versions of what are deemed to be crimes against god and gods will.
HOW is this relevant? I said above that the Christians point of view is that God defines it. Obviously others define it differently. homosexuality - on point. Our modern world says - homosexuality is not a sin. Why? Because people are born that way. And therefore God would not condemn someone on the basis that they were born because God made them that way. Incidentally, this is despite the fact that there is NOT ONE study which says people are born homosexuals. NOT ONE. In fact studies insist there is not even a gene that demonstrates that people have a tendency towards homosexuality. FACT is - we don't have evidence to support people are born homosexual. But don't question it.
For the Christian sin is defined by God as "falling short of his standards".
I am not sure if you are just trying to play down what the consequences are for a homosexual " falling short of his standards". Or if you are trying to simplify what crimes/sins against god and his will actually are. But god / also known to Christians as Jesus the Christ, makes the punishment for homosexuality a capital crime, does he not?
According to the Bible, homosexuality is not normal. It is a sin. It ought to be punished. The maximum penalty is death. Homosexuality falls short of God's standard because it is not how he describes and puts marriage. Two men or two women getting married and not having children falls short of the mandate to populate and fill the earth. I don't think this is too difficult to understand or even to appreciate. In fact such relationships do not have the capacity or the ability to do so - unless they ADOPT a child that has ARISEN because of another kind of relationship.
If the Opening poster is correct - then all Christians hate all things. This is clearly absurd.
