I refer you to my previous point that expecting an individual to take responsibility everything done in the name of any belief system is unrealistic. Raising huge amounts of money for charity, building hospitals, schools, social welfare and the rest, Christianity is the cultural model of western society. You can't ignore that because hypocrisy has been a recurring thread of human nature. Compare Sheldrake's experience of Hinduism to his Christian upbringing. As for Leviticus, how does that square with those without sin casting the first stone?
How does Leviticus square up to "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" - the obvious answer is that it can't possibly square up!
So why would you want to put both of those statements into one highly revered book? The evening service has one reading from the NT and one from the OT, presumably there is nothing to stop a priest selecting Leviticus 20:13 as the OT reading. In practice very few do I am sure, but if you look down the sweep of Christian history, clearly that was not always so. The corresponding verses in the Koran are presumably used far more frequently, which is why there are videos on the internet of men accused of being homosexual, being thrown off tall buildings.
The contents of holy books have consequences.
The church in much earlier times threw out texts it was not happy with, so why should it be unacceptable for this to happen now? I guess the honest answer is that Christianity has become too ossified to dream of such a thing. Indeed, why should the Church not add to the Bible - perhaps using the insights obtainable from NDE accounts? Wouldn't the Bible be improved if Leviticus were removed, and some background information about NDE's incorporated instead (linking them to various Biblical accounts that probably relate to NDE's?
We live in a time when the problem with organised religion is particularly clear. When a Muslim is radicalised, I'll bet much of that is done using selected quotes from their literature, just as Christians were whipped up into a frenzy from time to time to go on Crusades, or burn witches.
I postulate that the problem is that no religion based on unchangeable texts can ever permanently improve itself, because it keeps the bad texts - still revered - waiting to lead more people astray.
It isn't, I think so much a question of hypocrisy, because I would bet that many Islamic terrorists are probably among the most pious people on this earth. The problem is that the texts they revere as holy, contain some particularly inhumane ideas - as does the Bible.
To me, we have to escape from organised religion for that reason - there is simply no way for religions to purify themselves (Buddhism might be an exception). Reform used to be seen as banishing accounts of paranormal phenomena, but I have obviously no beef with these - even the empty tomb - if the evidence is good. I am talking about the morality of what you find in the Bible.
To me, a holy book can't be good in parts and vile in other parts!
BTW, I didn't engage in this conversation to bash you, or even Christians in general, I did it because I think organised religion is impossible to reform.
David