You're right, the Bible is full of contradictions, which I believe is fully on purpose, so that the devout can point to all the times God says love and say "look, my religion is one of love, my God is a god of love!" And then use that to justify committing all the other heinous act condoned in the Bible.

Weird how you're downvoted. Religion just isn't a good guide to live by but that's not your fault. Education is key.

Clearly homosexuality is wrong according to the bible.

There is no "the bible". It's a subjective collection of texts. While lots of people worship Paul as if he were a god, he's not actually Jesus.

I mean... there's a substantial difference between agreeing with a lifestyle, and persecuting that lifestyle. I assume you aren't currently picketing churches and harassing religious people, for example. The Bible is clear that an abundance of things are sinful, but Jesus consistently sets an example of loving prostitutes and tax collectors and Roman soldiers and everyone else Jews of that day hated.

So what this tweet is claiming is absolutely valid, the New Testament is immensely clear you should love everyone, and you shouldn't give "fundamentalists" a biblical pass for ignoring one of the most fundamental points the Bible makes, in hopes that they'll be willing to completely discard religion. They should be educated on their own damn book, and it's perfectly reasonable to call them on that.

I blame that damn council of Nicaea for grouping so many random books together. As far as I'm concerned Marcion's writings are the only cannon I would recognize. But seeing as it's almost completely lost, I'll have to be satisfied with ONLY the books of Luke and Acts from the Lexham English Bible translation.

If I'm feeling particularly frisky I'll include the infancy gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas..

To me, it seems that every other book in the currently accepted biblical canon was written purely out of Apologetics. "oh shoot I need to justify my opinion.. Oh look I found a new book that fits my agenda" then they said "Contradictions? No, [insert book/verse here] was written for X target audience so it doesn't apply here. My book is relevant to you!"

Bonus content:

Spicehoarder's Heretic Bible - First Edition:

1. Luke (LEB)
2. ACTS (LEB)
3. Infancy Gospel of Thomas
4. Gospel of Judas

Please, dick going up a butthole fits too perfectly for it to not be natural. Same goes for sucking. What they are referring to is the Roman practice of grooming children. Having a sexual relationship with a boy you adopted is unnatural.

But the question is about Jesus, and the references are in the new testament so it's correct. idk, the dude is supposed to be the son of god after all...

Yeah, what's wrong with wanting to be a good person? Are we going back to eugenics now?

So much for every state on the planet. Completely codified morality. Created and maintained by certified "bad people".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

I think you're right about a lot of fundamentalists, but you need to be careful with the "knowing God's will" part because Christianity is based on the Bible and the Bible teaches you what God's will is. So, in so much as someone is basing their words on what the Bible means by what it says, then they are not taking God's name in vain. But the moment they twist what the Bible means to fit their own narrative, then they are.

They just see the kids in their church.

When I was in Sunday School, we were given a strict (Catholic Catechism) definition: Your neighbor is anyone you meet. It doesn't even specify any "human." My mom always brought home that point whenever animal cruelty was discussed.

Of course, my parents who taught me that lesson are still Catholic and yet super proud of my identity. Very chill with my trans spouse. Even marched with me at a local pride event.

Maybe they're the exception but "love thy neighbor" does still have tangible meaning to some folks.

a historical person

That's up to debate.