So let's take a guy named Bob. Bob has a beer belly, and he likes eating, a LOT. He is by every definition a glutton. By allowing Bob into church without demanding that he change his life immediately, the church is supporting his sin?
I grew up in church, and a large number of them were morbidly obese. I didn't see any condemnation of their gluttony, nor did the church feel bad about allowing them in, even though that had ZERO intention to change.
So you're saying that gluttony is a "better", "more acceptable" sin than homosexuality? Should any organization that doesn't discriminate against sinners be rejected by the church? I don't see any christians rejecting Wal-Mart because they don't discriminate against homosexuals.
First, you ignored the request for evidence substantiating your claim that all sin is considered to be equal. Can you supply that please, as it seemed fairly integral to your original argument.
Second, is Bob in your example making a big deal of his gluttony [ besides being big himself ]? Is he forming organizations, lobbying, having media take up his cause to promote gluttony as not only accepted, but considered something he should not be ashamed of? And, are you absolutely sure that Bob is, indeed, gluttonous...? Perhaps does he have a thyroid problem ... or maybe is having to take steroids... or one of probably at least a hundred different maladies that manifest itself in appearing grossly overweight? How would the pastor know, specifically, in each and every case? Especially if Bob isn't making a big deal of it, pointing to himself all the time saying see, I am a glutton and you should just accept it, celebrate it even...
Third, just what is the real game here, why
MUST sexual preference be brought up? Especially in the case of an organization that deals mainly with underaged children in which promotion of sex, in any particular shared form, should not be, for the most part, encouraged.
Fourth, do you not agree that asking a church, whose reason for being, its very
raison de etre, is promoting just these sort of principles and that has achieved for themselves the long lasting prosperity of being the number one religion in the world, asking to give up what has helped them remain successful in the past, you think that is the better way to go?
Fifth, that asking the church to give up what it has successfully done for at least 2000 or so years while those calling for only the church giving up while at the same time not willing to give up themselves what they have done not very successfully since the beginning... you somehow forgot to say whether you thought that was
just as hypocritical or more hypocritical... it could not be less than either, could it?
Please answer 1-5, thanks...
Oh, and I do not think that people who actually praise and who actively, stridently promote gluttony should be off the hook, no. Everybody should accept it as something to be overcome... got that straight, do we?
