There is a difference between allowing someone to attend a church and accepting them as a member. Someone that leads a lifestyle that is clearly contrary to God's word is probably not a Christian. Sure, there are other lifestyles that can make people equally guilty, but they are not as clearly seen and as easily shown as homosexuality. If someone accused you of being a thief, your simple comeback could be that "I may have stolen in the past, but now I have changed my ways" and that would be perfectly acceptable. By being a homosexual, you are sending a clear message that "I am a homosexual right now and I am in no way convinced that I should have to change to be a Christian" which is blatantly wrong when weighed against scripture.
That's why I chose the examples of gluttony and gossip, because they are ongoing habits of behavior that are evident others. However, you chose to switch out those examples and substitute theft so that you could dodge the question. Clearly, the churches don't treat homosexuals as they treat other "sinners," and clearly you know this, or you wouldn't have had to discard my examples.
Again, remarriage is a sin, but it is not a sin that is a constant lifestyle (furthermore, there are justifiable reasons for divorce). A remarried individual could not atone for their mistake by divorcing their new partner, for example since that would only compound the problem.
Remarriage
is a constant lifestyle, as long as the adulterous second marriage continues. A remarried person who hasn't ended the adulterous second marriage has not repented of it. This is directly parallel to the case of a homosexual who is in a committed relationship, but you make excuses for the heterosexual while condemning the homosexual.
On the contrary, Christians do not support inequality, if by inequality, you actually mean voting against gay marriage. Marriage is a contract with God between two heterosexual individuals, as clearly defined in scripture. Why should Christians want homosexuals to be able to participate? It is nothing against homosexuals (and I am not against partnerships, for example), but rather me upholding what I believe to be scriptural. And yes, I am accountable for that belief and I do not think that inequality is some horrible injustice in this case.
Of course you don't. Bigots always think think that their bigotry is reasonable; Strom Thurmond, forty years ago, didn't think that keeping black Americans from voting was a horrible injustice, either. Because, of course, "they" don't have the rights that "we" do, and "we" have a duty to uphold god's will. You've just endorsed the same line of reasoning the Christians have always used to justify the persecution and oppression of others.
That is unfortunately true, but like I said before... the Bible defines the church as the body of Christ which has 100% open arms to homosexuals.
Then why do you define the church as a body that cannot accept homosexuals as members? You can't have it both ways.
The Bible is not against war. This issue is much too complicated to cover in one thread. You are merely oversimplifying it to make it look like support of those actions are necessarily hateful.
Would you like to have your city bombed? Would you like to be arbitrarily imprisoned for years without being charged with any crime? Would you like to be tortured? It
is simple. Jesus said you must treat your neighbor as you would be treated. He didn't say it would be easy.
country against non-Christians that creates, unfortunately, a lot of "fake Christians". The Bible is very explicit on who a Christian is and the ultimate authority on the matter, don't you think?
Well, fine. You consider yourself the interpreter of the Bible and the judge of who the real Christians are. But you yourself support bigotry, oppression, and violence, so how are your "real" Christians any better than the Christians you think are "fake"?
So what you are implying is that a Buddhist could never be violent?
No, that's not what I said and it's not what I meant. And you didn't answer the question.
Judging by the articles I provided, your premise falls flat, and your conclusion proves wrong. Any religion----not just Christianity----can be violent if its adherents want it to be.
Any religion could be, but not all religions are, and not all those that are violent are as consistently violent as Christianity.
If we asked whether the world would have been better off without Nazism, how would you reply? Would you say that Nazis are no worse than anybody else, and that if there had not been a Nazi party, people would still have found an excuse for the Holocaust?
Your argument is specious. Nevertheless, it concedes -- whether you meant it to or not -- the powerlessness of Christianity to make people kinder or better. If Christianity were true, if it truly had a beneficial effect, it would not be necessary for you to fall back on the tired argument that other religions are just as bad.
As someone who keeps abreast of the violence and persecution suffered by Christians at the hands of other religions, I think it appears pretty obvious which religion is actually one of the most peaceful, loving, and least aggressive. The facts speak for themselves. Your perception is highly skewed and shows intense prejudice.
The fact that Christians are persecuted doesn't show that they are peaceful, loving, or non-aggressive. Maybe you should consider keeping abreast of the violence and persecution suffered at the hands of Christians, too.
You see, Christians are very good at
saying they're the most peaceful and loving people in the world, but they're not at all good at making that a reality on the ground. Compounding the violence, oppression and bigotry of Christians with self-righteous hypocrisy only compounds the problem.
I'm of the opinion that contemporary Christianity sometimes seems to be peaceful, loving and non-aggressive because it has to some extent absorbed the values of the European Enlightenment and other Western cultural developments.
Christianity has been somewhat improved by the moderating effect of the Enlightenment. However, there is still a long way to go.
Go back before the Enlightenment and Christianity does not appear at all to be a peaceful, loving, non-aggressive religion.
Not after, either. Look at all the violence and oppression that has been committed in the name of God in the United States alone. Racism, propounded from pulpits across this country, is not just a bad attitude. It has real and tragic results for real people. So do homophobia. So does jingoistic nonsense about America being a Christian country.