Some things are supposed to be taken for granted. Satanists are followers of Satan. Lutherans are followers of the philosophy of Martin Luther. Sure, some things get confusing...we drive on Parkways, park on driveways, Cargo goes by ship, Shipments go by car...all of that.
Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that those religious people who considered themselves "Christian", would naturally be followers of the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. Sure, he was born in Bethlehem, hung out in Jerusalem, but he was for the most part, known as a Nazarene. Anyway, Jesus was of the Jewish faith, and of the Jewish ethnic and cultural ancestry. We won't spark a debate here by using the term "race".
Now, if Jesus wasn't sent to change a few things about the Jewish faith, then why was he sent? And, if he wasn't sent to stir the pot a bit, why did he indirectly and directly rebuke more than a few things that were settled within the Jewish Torah? And, much of the Jewish scriptures became the modern BIBLE. (Of course, once it was cherry-picked enough by the nascent Christian scholars that put the Bible together...you really didn't think that God sat down and wrote the Bible in one sitting did you?)
The Bible is a group of disjointed writings of MEN, that were carefully selected and organized into what we now call the WORD OF GOD. It's the word of men, of course, but using the WORD OF GOD tagline really helps in the world of marketing.
So, follow me here; Jesus was sent to set up a NEW WAY, as He said...a new deal, so to speak. (Luke 22:20) And what did he do once he had everyone's attention? He gave one law...to love one another (John 13:34 - 13:35).
Jesus never once mentioned anything about Gay people. He never once mentioned anything negative about women. He did, however, go out of his way to indirectly rebuke some of the OT laws...like the stoning of the adulteress. He directly rebuked the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" law of the OT. (Matthew 5:38-42).
With all of this evidence that God Herself (ok, ok) thought it was important enough to send her own Son to change/clear up/shake up things within the Jewish Religion, (we can argue if Jesus was sent to "save" or "lead" the Jews from the "bondage" of the Romans, or just to lead them out of some obvious problems with their interpretation(s) of their own religious philosophies, but won't here), why do Evangelicals place so much MORE importance on the Old Testament laws and philosophies, rather than on what Jesus actually said and did? In other words, why do Evangelicals ignore the lessons of Jesus, and sink back into the comfort of the Old Testament hate-fest?
Because it is more convenient. Period.
Oh, but Pauline letters support the Old Testament laws, they will say.
Yeah, but the apostle Paul was a salesman, hell-bent on revenues...gentile conversions to the new religion. He rebelled against the wishes of James the Just, the Apostle leader in Jerusalem at the time. He never knew Jesus the Christ. He was an Old-Testament (Torah/Talmud/Midrash) fan whose ideas were definitely OT-centric. He was not what you would call, a New Testament kind of guy. Much of Paul's writings are in conflict of the words of Jesus. They are in conflict with the deeds of Jesus, as told by the four synoptic gospels.
But yet, Evangelicals, at least the conservative ones, have by and large embraced the OT, embraced the letters of Paul, embraced the Revelations of the NT, and pretty much find the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark & John that tell the direct story of Jesus in words and deeds, as speed bumps in an otherwise straight line of conservative religious thought.
Now, if we can just get Christians to believe in Christ again, maybe everything will be ok!