Should Same Sex Couples be allowed to be Christians, Muslims, etc?

OH MAN WE'RE GONNA GO EXTINCT, WE NEED MORE BABIES

edit: transparency :<

This is Storm_Marine, I've decided to do a Fox.

Neoklondiak

This is Neoklodiak, I've decided to do a Fox.

As long as they respect the religion they chose.unrealtron

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

what do you mean by "allowed to be Christians, Muslims, etc"? Are you talking about same-sex couples wanting to convert to a certain religion? I think this is a matter for the religions (government should stay out of this). If someone is born/raised in a religion that is against homosexual activity, I don't think they will be kicked out (though their may be some consequences) of the religion for marrying/dating a member of the same gender. However if a same-sex couple wanted to convert to a certain religion as adults, obviously they would have to abide by that religion's rules in order to join the community of believers.

StatusShuffle

[QUOTE="unrealtron"]As long as they respect the religion they chose.StatusShuffle

Allowed? I don't see what's stopping them.

There are denominations of Christianity now which even oversee and honor homosexual unions anyway. Whether or not an individual decides to label them as true Christians is, I suppose, up to that individual and really only affects them.

I don't know why you would want to be part of a group who won't accept you? JustPlainLucas

Well, as has been said in this thread already, there are denominations which are fully accepting of homosexuals and same sex relationships/marriages in spite of Biblical scripture, so it's not such a far off concept as it would have been decades ago.

yes without question yes there are alot of religious same sex couples.

Sure, they can call themselves Christians (only addressing that because I am one) if they want to. But they'll be wrong.

BibleGateway - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Sure, they can call themselves Christians (only addressing that because I am one) if they want to. But they'll be wrong.

BibleGateway - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Crushmaster

They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

Sure, they can call themselves Christians (only addressing that because I am one) if they want to. But they'll be wrong.

BibleGateway - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
God bless,
Crushmaster.

RationalAtheist

They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.

They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.RationalAtheist

No

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.Crushmaster

No, you're talking about your eligibility for Christianity. I'm interested in your added caveat of "practising" a lifestyle of making scornful comments. I would never have inferred that from the passage you supplied though.

God bless, unless you're scornful - that is.

No, you're talking about your eligibility for Christianity. I'm interested in your added caveat of "practising" a lifestyle of making scornful comments. I would never have inferred that from the passage you supplied though.

God bless, unless you're scornful - that is.RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

Sure, they can call themselves Christians (only addressing that because I am one) if they want to. But they'll be wrong.

BibleGateway - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
God bless,
Crushmaster.

RationalAtheist

They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]No, you're talking about your eligibility for Christianity. I'm interested in your added caveat of "practising" a lifestyle of making scornful comments. I would never have inferred that from the passage you supplied though.

God bless, unless you're scornful - that is.Crushmaster

I see you give yourself a sense of exemption by twisting the meaning of that verse. Did it refer to telling lies?

Do you think your posts here have been charicterised as at all scornful?

The verse directly says that people who are scornful (revilers), among others, will not inherit whatever it is "proper" Christians are meant to. It does not quantify any amounts of the particular sins it mentions. You do that instead - I guess to make yourself feel more worthy of salvation.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

Sure, they can call themselves Christians (only addressing that because I am one) if they want to. But they'll be wrong.

BibleGateway - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
God bless,
Crushmaster.

LJS9502_basic

They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.

No comment crush? LJS9502_basic

he fears you

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

They'd be in the same boat as those who use scornful language (revilers), by those biblical standards.

StatusShuffle

The Scripture he quoted was dealing with the common morality of the NT period. The word was not actually pertaining to homosexuals in general, but older men who kept boy prostitutes. Which is not the same as two consenting adults. So I'll ask crush again where he gets his information.LJS9502_basic

I see you give yourself a sense of exemption by twisting the meaning of that verse. Did it refer to telling lies?

Do you think your posts here have been charicterised as at all scornful?

The verse directly says that people who are scornful (revilers), among others, will not inherit whatever it is "proper" Christians are meant to. It does not quantify any amounts of the particular sins it mentions. You do that instead - I guess to make yourself feel more worthy of salvation. RationalAtheist

Would you consider someone a scorner if they said five scornful things over the course of five years? Hence my point.Crushmaster

Hang on - didn't you always jump at the chance to try to convert people using arguments along the lines of 'you have lied at least once and are therefore a liar'? Which would mean similarly that it would indeed make you a scorner if you'd said five scornful things over the course of five years. Or are people only characterised by sins when it wouldn't apply to you?MannyDelgado

Lying was, among other things, mentioned in the passage I quoted. Hence why I used it as an example.

In general, no. Though I'm sure some would disagree.

Would you consider someone a scorner if they said five scornful things over the course of five years? Hence my point.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Crushmaster

Was it really? The quote was this:

"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Could you point out where it refers to liars, or were you lying?

"In general" infers that you sometimes are scornful and therefore are a reviler. Your admission that some would also think you are scornful only adds to that evidence of your nature. Wouldn't that put you in the same position as a homosexual, if you take that passage seriously?

I would consider a reviler as one who reviles. As I said and then repeated; your biblical passage makes no distinction on amounts. Would you give the same temporal constraints to homosexuals too? i.e. Would that be ok once a year for five years?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Scripture he quoted was dealing with the common morality of the NT period. The word was not actually pertaining to homosexuals in general, but older men who kept boy prostitutes. Which is not the same as two consenting adults. So I'll ask crush again where he gets his information.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"] Hang on - didn't you always jump at the chance to try to convert people using arguments along the lines of 'you have lied at least once and are therefore a liar'? Which would mean similarly that it would indeed make you a scorner if you'd said five scornful things over the course of five years. Or are people only characterised by sins when it wouldn't apply to you?Crushmaster

Was it really? The quote was this:

"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Could you point out where it refers to liars, or were you lying?

"In general" infers that you sometimes are scornful and therefore are a reviler. Your admission that some would also think you are scornful only adds to that evidence of your nature. Wouldn't that put you in the same position as a homosexual, if you take that passage seriously?

I would consider a reviler as one who reviles. As I said and then repeated; your biblical passage makes no distinction on amounts. Would you give the same temporal constraints to homosexuals too? i.e. Would that be ok once a year for five years?RationalAtheist

Which would mean - bringing it back to the topic of discussion - that whether gay couples are Christian or not is indeterminate: if they're Christian, then their sins are forgiven and they're not 'characterised' by homosexuality. If they aren't Christian, their sins aren't forgiven and they are characterised by homosexuality. Obviously the cause of this is an infinite regress: whether you are Christian depends on whether you are characterised by your sins which depends on whether you're forgiven for your sins which depends on whether you're Christian.MannyDelgado

I had no idea it worked like that. I thought you always had to repent for your sins in order for them to be forgiven. I also gathered a purpose of repenting was so that you would try not to sin again. I didn't realise that Christianity gives you some sort of exemption from sin. Are you talking about some particularly liberal interpretation of Christianity?

Which would mean - bringing it back to the topic of discussion - that whether gay couples are Christian or not is indeterminate: if they're Christian, then their sins are forgiven and they're not 'characterised' by homosexuality. If they aren't Christian, their sins aren't forgiven and they are characterised by homosexuality. Obviously the cause of this is an infinite regress: whether you are Christian depends on whether you are characterised by your sins which depends on whether you're forgiven for your sins which depends on whether you're Christian.MannyDelgado

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]Which would mean - bringing it back to the topic of discussion - that whether gay couples are Christian or not is indeterminate: if they're Christian, then their sins are forgiven and they're not 'characterised' by homosexuality. If they aren't Christian, their sins aren't forgiven and they are characterised by homosexuality. Obviously the cause of this is an infinite regress: whether you are Christian depends on whether you are characterised by your sins which depends on whether you're forgiven for your sins which depends on whether you're Christian.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

Lying was, among other things, mentioned in the passage I quoted. Hence why I used it as an example.

In general, no. Though I'm sure some would disagree.

Would you consider someone a scorner if they said five scornful things over the course of five years? Hence my point.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

RationalAtheist

Was it really? The quote was this:

"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Could you point out where it refers to liars, or were you lying?

"In general" infers that you sometimes are scornful and therefore are a reviler. Your admission that some would also think you are scornful only adds to that evidence of your nature. Wouldn't that put you in the same position as a homosexual, if you take that passage seriously?

I would consider a reviler as one who reviles. As I said and then repeated; your biblical passage makes no distinction on amounts. Would you give the same temporal constraints to homosexuals too? i.e. Would that be ok once a year for five years?

23 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

10

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

footnote 2 indicates that that list is a "catalogue of typical vices that exlude one from the kingdom of God" and footnote 3 indicates that the Greek word rendered as "boy prostitutes" may refer to catamites, young men who were kept as prostitutes.

I imagine "slanderer" is the NAB's translation of the same Greek word that you quote as "reviler". A slanderer is somone who falsely accuses someone (i.e. slanders them) of things.

Homosexuality demands a lifestyle because of how deep the action is.Crushmaster

Haha! You're right, sorry. There are several other lists like this (e.g., Revelation 21:8, that mentions lying), and that's why I thought this mentioned it.

I disagree, because it doesn't characterize me. And some people think I'm a lot of things [on here], so, no, that doesn't add any evidence. ;)

No, because homosexuality is a much deeper thing. It is at the very core of one's being, as it perverts one of most basic things in nature: God's creation of male and female, and their attraction to one another.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Crushmaster

Don't worry - a mistake is not a lie - not if it's genuine!

I think scornfulness does characterize you in a way: One recent comment of your's had you suggesting that a murderous Islamic couple should be put to death, rather than forgiven, or whatever. Perhaps that was one of your "one-per-year"!

I can't see that quote you gave comparatively grading sins in any way. Once again, I think this is your own doing. I think being scornful goes to the core of one's being too - regardless of sexuality. According to your own quote you bought justifying your scornful view, your scornful view would be among the things that gets you damned.

Such is the hypocrisy of quoting biblical verses to justify your message.

The New American Bible translation of the verses you quoted (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) is: "

23 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

10

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

footnote 2 indicates that that list is a "catalogue of typical vices that exlude one from the kingdom of God" and footnote 3 indicates that the Greek word rendered as "boy prostitutes" may refer to catamites, young men who were kept as prostitutes.

I imagine "slanderer" is the NAB's translation of the same Greek word that you quote as "reviler". A slanderer is somone who falsely accuses someone (i.e. slanders them) of things.

whipassmt

It wasn't my quote - it was direct from the link that Crushmaster gave. I always use YLT for the most accurate translation myself (which does also translate as "revilers"), but I was only going on what I was given in this case (NKJV).

Thanks for your definition of "slanderer" though...

I think people should be able to practice religion or no religion at all no matter of their sexual preference. I believe that judgment is reserved for God alone for what someone does in their life. I just wish people were more accepting of other people, but that's human nature.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

Lying was, among other things, mentioned in the passage I quoted. Hence why I used it as an example.

In general, no. Though I'm sure some would disagree.

Would you consider someone a scorner if they said five scornful things over the course of five years? Hence my point.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

whipassmt

Was it really? The quote was this:

"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Could you point out where it refers to liars, or were you lying?

"In general" infers that you sometimes are scornful and therefore are a reviler. Your admission that some would also think you are scornful only adds to that evidence of your nature. Wouldn't that put you in the same position as a homosexual, if you take that passage seriously?

I would consider a reviler as one who reviles. As I said and then repeated; your biblical passage makes no distinction on amounts. Would you give the same temporal constraints to homosexuals too? i.e. Would that be ok once a year for five years?

23 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

10

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

footnote 2 indicates that that list is a "catalogue of typical vices that exlude one from the kingdom of God" and footnote 3 indicates that the Greek word rendered as "boy prostitutes" may refer to catamites, young men who were kept as prostitutes.

I imagine "slanderer" is the NAB's translation of the same Greek word that you quote as "reviler". A slanderer is somone who falsely accuses someone (i.e. slanders them) of things.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

The New American Bible translation of the verses you quoted (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) is: "

23 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

10

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

footnote 2 indicates that that list is a "catalogue of typical vices that exlude one from the kingdom of God" and footnote 3 indicates that the Greek word rendered as "boy prostitutes" may refer to catamites, young men who were kept as prostitutes.

I imagine "slanderer" is the NAB's translation of the same Greek word that you quote as "reviler". A slanderer is somone who falsely accuses someone (i.e. slanders them) of things.

RationalAtheist

It wasn't my quote - it was direct from the link that Crushmaster gave. I always use YLT for the most accurate translation myself (which does also translate as "revilers"), but I was only going on what I was given in this case (NKJV).

Thanks for your definition of "slanderer" though...