What is your opinion of Christianity?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Very positive, largely for the same reason Rfayette gave.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

It's only what we Mormons call The Pride Cycle, which is very much ingrained into humanity, no matter the society.

     Very much agreed. Anyone who pays attention sees the same trends repeating themselves in all societies to this day. If one thinks that the Israelites repeatedly straying are meant to be understood as some exception worthy of disdain and not a cautionary rule for us all to be wary of, then the point has been missed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I agree with Dr. RI and appreciate that he took the time to make such a detailed post on this matter. 

I would like to add one thing:  the strength of the above evidence is dependent upon how intrinsically probable or improbable you believe miracles are.  Some people, like David Hume, basically take the position that any natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a miracle.  However, if there are independent reasons to believe there is an omnipotent God that by definition can perform miracles, then the evidence for the resurrection is much more powerful. 

While there are many arguments for the existence of God, I think Aquinas's first 3 ways are the most compelling.  These are considered cosmological arguments and argue that an unconditioned, non-contingent reality with the divine attributes is necessary to ground the continuing existence of our universe as well as the change and cause/effect that takes place within it.  I would encourage people to research more into it - this is a good *introduction* to these kinds of arguments. 

     Though if one is going to accept the Humean prior that miracles are impossible and therefore there are no miracles, it makes no sense to ask for evidence of Christianity. The decision then has already been made to reject the evidence and conclude Christianity is false, regardless of what is said in defense of the faith. Indeed, many atheist thinkers have stopped demanding evidence and admitted that they cannot be persuaded to believe in God. Just look at Shermer's Last Law as an example, wherein he assumes an epistemology that, if applied consistently, leads us to solipsism.