Can a practicing homosexual be a Christian?
Here are the rules for this debate:
1) Round 1 is acceptance and not argument
2) Round 2 is both sides arguments and Pro's Rebuttal if desired
3) Round 3 is rebuttals from both sides
4) Round 4 is rebuttals and why voters should take your side
I wish my opponent the best of luck, and I am looking forward to diving into this.
I did this debate a year ago and was slaughtered because my argument was not laid out too well, so this year I am planning on redemption!
Thank you, and enjoy this conversation!
I am very excited to dive into this debate, mainly because it is being widely disputed among Christian and the Church. I wish my opponent the best of skill and that we will clearly present our points to the best of our ability.
Before we dive into this debate, I want to establish some fundamentals since I am a man of basics.
Fundamentals for this Debate
1) As a Christian, we believe that the Bible is the perfect Word of God and it is profitable for proof and correction. We believe that the Bible teaches and helps us to be more like Christ. We believe that there is no wrong in the Bible and that it is not irrelevant, but still relevant to human life today. The Bible is God's Word and should not be taken lightly.
2) The Bible is the foundation for this debate. If my opponent goes by other sources other than the Bible, than this will be a "black hole" debate where no one wins. If we establish now that the Bible is the primary source for addressing this topic, than we can both present our points in a more organized fashion.
These are the fundamentals that I hope my opponent will go by. If he disagrees with one of them, he can refute them if wished.
Now it is time to get on with the debate!
In order for us to determine whether one can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian simultaneously, one must establish these things:
1. How must one become a Christian?
2. Is Homosexuality a sin?
3. Can one be a Christian while living in sin?
We will use a biblical foundation for addressing these questions, starting with question number one.
1. How must one become a Christian?
This is a widely dispitued question among the church, because so many different churches say different things.
Romans 10:9-10 : "Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
Luke 13:3 : No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
My opponent based his position on three points.
1. How we become a Christian.
2. Homosexuality is a sin.
3. We can't be a Christian if we "live in sin".
It is my belief that this debate hinges on #3. That's where I will
spend the majority of my time. I say this because even if we were to
agree on 1 and 2, if my opponent fails on #3, then practicing
homosexuals CAN still be Christians.
1. Logical Fallacy
After my opponent describes how one becomes a Christian, and calls
homosexuality a sin, he then swerved directly into a logical fallacy
that undercuts the credibility of his ENTIRE argument:
No True Scotsman
In this line of faulty reasoning, no matter how compelling the case
against the argument, the person engaging in the "No True Scotsman"
fallacy keeps moving the goalposts so it won't apply to a "true"
example. For example:
"Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to
which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his
porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman
sugars his porridge." 
This one argument is enough for me to win this debate. Having said
that, there's another error in my opponent's line of reasoning that I'd
like to discuss.
2. Deliberate Sin
After arguing about what he calls "living in sin", my opponent tries to
preempt my case by admitting that all Christians sin, but we allegedly
don't engage in what he calls "deliberate sin". He then describes
deliberate sin as "sinning with the full awareness that one is
disobeying God and yet still decides to go on with it." Therein lies
What if a practicing homosexual was sinning by engaging in homosexual
sex, but didn't have "the full awareness" that he was disobeying God?
Maybe, after confessing with his heart that Jesus is Lord and repenting
of his sins, no one told him that practicing homosexuality was sinful,
and maybe he never read the Bible. If that was the case, then
according to my opponent, this person wouldn't be fully aware that he
was sinning, and therefore, wouldn't be engaging in "deliberate" sin.
He would be guilty of sin, but not "deliberate sin", and therefore,
would STILL be a Christian AND a practicing homosexual.
I now turn it back over to my opponent.
I am very glad that my opponent has responded and that we get to further this debate! I am going to address my opponents arguments on a biblical basis.
I would like to point out that my oppponent used absolutely no Biblical citations for his argument, which minimizes his argument very much. I established that this was a biblical debate and he did not use it at all.
I would also like to point out that my opponent affirms that Homosexuality is a sin by not addressing the argument. He didn't address the Bible verses I clearly laid out concerning repentance and how to be saved and my whole BIBLICAL argument concerning the area of a practicing homosexual being a Christian.
I find this to be very frustrating, because he is trying to go off of human logic, which is flawed, instead of going by the Word of the Lord which is perfect and addresses every area of life in a flawless manner.
OPPONENT'S 1ST ARGUMENT
"No True Scotsman"
In this line of faulty reasoning, no matter how compelling the caseagainst the argument, the person engaging in the "No True Scotsman"fallacy keeps moving the goalposts so it won't apply to a "true"example. For example:
"Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to
which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his
porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman
sugars his porridge."
This one argument is enough for me to win this debate. Having said that, there's another error in my opponent's line of reasoning that I'dlike to discuss.
If my knowledge of metaphors hasn't completely deserted me, my opponent is stating that I am judging the "Christian homosexual" and that it is not for me to decide whether a homosexual is a Christian or not, because it is not my right to judge one's salvation.
I already addressed this argument on a biblical basis. I gave scriptural citations on the signs of one being a Christian. I am not the judge, but God is. God has already judged practicing homosexuals who claim to be Christians. I am just relaying the message.
These were the citations I used which my opponent did not address:
1 John 5:18 - "We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."
Galatians 5:19-21 - "Nowthe works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions,divisions,envy,drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, thatthose who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Only Christians inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 should end this debate, because it clearly shows that if a man practices homosexuality, he will not inherit the kingdom of God. I was careful to put "practicing homosexual" in the debate title for this very purpose.
OPPONENT'S 2ND ARGUMENT
2. Deliberate Sin
My opponent does a very foolish thing by throwing around a lot of "What ifs" and again, no biblical citation for his argument. The thing about "What ifs" is that, if we are going by logic, is invalid because it is goes against "The Rule of Speculation". The Rule of Speculation states that any argument that presents a possible outcome is invalid because it is unable to be proved due to assumption.
By using this, my opponent's second argument, logically, is invalid. But let's say his point was valid... How would I address it, biblically?
Turns out, I already did. Read my citations about homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom of God. It's clearly expressed in Scripture, and my opponent cannot refute that with any situation he gives.
I now challenge my opponent to do this next round:
1. Give my Biblical evidence for a practicing homosexual to be a Christian
That's it! Once he can prove it, I'll believe it, but so far the Bible is on my side, and this debate's foundation is centered on Scripture.
Good luck to my opponent next round!
going to be a fun and interesting debate. Having said that, I have
some concerns about what he said. I will address them here:
USING THE BIBLE
My opponent seems confused when it comes to the subject of me using the
Bible. He seems to be under the mistaken assumption that if I don't
use the Bible exclusively, that my arguments are somehow "minimized".
This is not accurate. I am under no obligation to use the Bible alone.
If my opponent wanted this to be a debate solely on the scriptures,
he should have made it a rule. The first round is for establishing rules,
not the second round. By that time, I'd already accepted the debate.
It's too late now to be unilaterally establishing any rules. I do NOT
accept any attempt to do so.
Having said that, I have always planned on using scripture to my
advantage; I just don't plan on using the Bible alone. Assuming God
exists, He gave us an intellect. This intellect allows us to form
arguments based on logic and reason. Certainly my opponent won't try
to stop me from using one of my God given gifts. Of course our logic
can be flawed, but so can our understanding of scripture.
This leads me to my next point:
In his first rebuttal, my opponent claimed that he was simply
"relaying" God's message. The implication here is that he let God
speak for Himself. That is not accurate. Sure, my opponent quoted
scripture, but that's not ALL he did. He also gave us his personal
interpretation. He told us how he thought the passages should be
understood. So in reality, my opponent is doing EXACTLY what he
criticized me for doing. A perfect example of this came right after he
posted the verse from 1 John. After offering the verse, my opponent
offers his own interpretation. Let's take a look:
"Most people are confused about this verse because obviously Christians
aren't perfect! But what John is referring to here is "deliberate sin"
which means sinning with the full awareness that one is disobeying God
and yet still decides to go on with it."
So here we see my opponent telling us "what John is referring to here
is...", followed by "which means...". With this in mind, I ask my
opponent to dispense with the notion that he's not trying to use logic
to make his case. Unless, of course, he is willing to call his
arguments ILLOGICAL??? In that case, I would be happy to accept his
Is Homosexual Sex a Sin?
My opponent has tried to make hay about me not addressing this issue.
I find that rather surprising because I specifically said in with my
first argument that I would be basing most of my arguments on my
opponent's third claim, "Can one be a Christian while living in sin?"
After all, if my opponent loses that point, all his other claims are
Who Goes to Heaven?
According to my opponent, someone who violates Galatians 5:19-21
doesn't go to Heaven. This verse mentions not only "sexual
immorality", but also "jealousy, fits of anger, and envy". Here's my
question for my opponent: Has he ever been jealous, angry, thrown a
fit, or envious? If so, does he still consider himself a Christian?
If he does, why couldn't a practicing homosexual have the same right?
I will now address his second rebuttal:
My opponent claims my rebuttal concerning "deliberate sin" is invalid
due to what he calls "The Rule of Speculation". There's only one
problem with this: IT DOESN'T EXIST. This is probably why he didn't
offer any source to back up his claim. The closest thing I could find
was a rule for trial law called "Speculation". It is described as such:
"Speculation is another objection which is available to the lawyers
involved in a trial case. "
Again, this rule is specifically for "lawyers involved in a trial
case." With this in mind, since this is not a trial, and neither of us
are lawyers, it doesn't apply to us. Not only that, but this means my
argument remains unrefuted.
Not only that, but he really hasn't addressed my argument on
"deliberate sin". Posting verses alone is not an argument. With this
in mind, I maintain that if a practicing homosexual isn't deliberately
defying God's will, then he's not committing a "deliberate sin". And,
according to my opponent, a sinner is still a Christian as long as he's
not committing "deliberate sin".
As I said earlier, I have always intended to include biblical evidence
to support my claim that one is wrong to say practicing homosexuals
can't be Christians. I will now proceed:
Matthew 7: 1-3
1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you
judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will
be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother"s eye and
pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I would assert that this passage is condemning those of us who judge
certain, specific people are going to Hell. This is God's job alone,
Does 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 END THIS DEBATE?
In the previous round, my opponent said that he believed this passage
should end this debate "because it clearly shows that if a man practices
homosexuality, he will not inherit the kingdom of God."
After considering my opponent's argument concerning this passage, I
have to admit, I agree. This debate is now over. Unfortunately for
him, I have won, and he has lost. Here's why:
First, let's begin with the definition of the word "homosexual":
" Full Definition of homosexual
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual
desire toward another of the same sex
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of
the same sex" 
So, we see that a homosexual is any person who has a same sex attraction. ANY person, male OR female, who has intercourse with persons of the same gender is defined as a homosexual.
This poses a problem for my opponent, because the passage he says "should end this debate" condemns only "MEN who practice homosexuality". It makes no mention of women who practice homosexuality. So, in summation, I AGREE with my opponent. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ends this debate. It answers our debate resolution, "Can a practicing homosexual be a Christian?" The answer is yes, as long as they're female.
Thanks for my opponent getting back to me! He made some interesting points that I will address.
USING THE BIBLE
My opponent does not seem to grasp the idea that this is a "Christian Topic" and the foundation for the Christian Religion is the Bible. I do agree that I should have put it in the rules in the first round, but I thought my opponent would already have that foundation in his mind. Obviously not. I still believe my opponent's arguments are minimized because he is not using a foundation for most of his arguments. He is using a more subjective outlook on this while I am using an objective outlook on most of the debate, which should run in my favor.
I do agree that God gave us logic and reason, but he gave us a foundation for that logic and reason. Our logic and reason comes from His Word. If we went by logic and reason from each individual person apart from Scripture, logic and reason could not be defined, because it is exclusive to each individual person. The reason logic and reason can be universally accepted is if there is a place to start.
My opponent stated that I gave personal interpretations. In the next round I would like him to lay out all of my personal interpretations concerning Scripture and I will address them.
Concerning 1 John. I did use logic. You are right. But the logic I used is based on Scripture. My logic wasn't drawn from somewhere else.
Hebrews 10:26 - "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins..."
This verse runs together with 1 John. 1 John says that "whoever is born of God does not keep on sinning..." And this verse, Hebrews 10:16, just affirmed that.
WHO GOES TO HEAVEN?
My opponent makes a good point concerning Galatians 5:19-21, but he obviously doesn't know the FULL CONTEXT of the passage. Let us look at Galatians 5:16-23...
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
21 envy,[d] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
I established in my argument in Round 2 that homosexuality is sexual immoralityas in the above passage. My opponent fails to see that Christians walk by the Spirit and we are not defined by our flesh anymore.
Christians are children of God and are not defined by our flesh anymore.
The passage above shows what non-Christians do because the works of the flesh are evident in them.
THE RULE OF SPECULATION
My opponent stated that "specualation" isn't relevant to this debate because it is used in court cases. I think this is preference of opinion here. But I'll back up my point.
What do laywers do in court cases?
They debate! They're trying to get a point across and the "Rule of Speculation" or "Speculation Objection" is used quite frequently, so in my personal opinion, I believe that this rule is relevant to this conversation. He can't prove that it's not relevant.
My opponent then goes on to say that a practicing homosexual can still be saved if he has no awareness that he's sinning. I've already given verses about homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom of God, and that should be enough. I also should state this...
Let's say his assessment is valid... Meaning this happens.
"A practicing homosexual walks into a church and hears the gospel and doesn't realize homosexuality is a sin. He goes to the altar and "gives his life to Jesus". He then goes on to do more homosexual acts. He dies. He goes to heaven."
What about everything in between?
What about Christians going to him as fellow believers and telling him he's in sin?
What about the homosexual reading his Bible and seeing that homosexuality is a sin?
What about the homosexual living his whole life as a "Christian" and what would that look like?
My opponent doesn't ask these questions when coming up with his situations.
My opponent then states that "posting Scriptures alone isn't an argument." Hm... That's odd. That's like showing footage of a man being murdered by a person, we get a close up of the murderer's face, identify who it is, and then bring it to the police and they say, "That evidence isn't relevant."
We are talking about the Word of God here! Of course it's the best argument I have because it's what God says. Basically my opponent is saying that if God came down and said what I'm saying, and my opponent would say to God, "Sorry... You're not making a good case."
It's pretty ridiculous.
Like I said in the earlier rounds... I am not judging, God has judged the sinner through His word a'nd I am just relaying the message.
Also. Look at this verse.
1 Corinthians 2:15 - "The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."
So what about that verse? It seemingly contradicts the other one.
Believers are warned against judging others unfairly or unrighteously, but Jesus commends “right judgment” (John 7:24, ESV). We are to be discerning (Colossians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We are to preach the whole counsel of God, including the Bible’s teaching on sin (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 4:2). We are to gently confront erring brothers or sisters in Christ (Galatians 6:1). We are to practice church discipline (Matthew 18:15–17). We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
There are certain judgments that are permissible and some that are not. My opponent refers to judging someone's salvation on your own accord without using Scripture.
DOES 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11 END THIS DEBATE?
This has to be the funniest rebuttal I have ever seen.
My opponent claims that my verse is invalid because 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is only referring to "men who practice homosexuality."
If my opponent knew how to dig into Scripture, he would have never of thought of this argument, and I'll show why.
There are different translations of this passage:
NLT - 1 Corinthians 6:9
"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality..."
NASB - 1 Corinthians 6:9
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals..."
KJB - 1 Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..."
So we have different translations here that refer to homosexualis in general. The ESV's "men" is referring to the whole human race.
Romans 1:26-27 : "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
This passage refers to both male and female committing acts of homosexuality that is sinful.
WHY VOTERS SHOULD VOTE FOR ME:
1. I won Biblically, and this was a biblical debate.
I wish him nothing but success in his future endeavors. Having said
that, I do have a few concerns about his latest response. I will
address them now:
As anyone can see, I was more than willing to use the Bible in this
debate. Not only did I argue why my opponent was misinterpreting some
verses, but I also offered verses that supported my contention. But
the question is, was either of us required to use the Bible alone? The
answer is no. My opponent chose to limit himself to his
interpretations of the Bible. I did not. In doing so, I did nothing
wrong. And as my opponent admitted, I broke no rules. Because of
this, none of my arguments were automatically minimized. A Christian
debate doesn't have to use the Bible at the expense of logic. The two
can be used in conjunction. If my
opponent has difficulty refuting such arguments, I suggest next time he
debates someone, he should make a rule forbidding such arguments.
Where Does Logic and Reason Come From?
My opponent says that logic and reason come from the Bible, and without
the Bible, we wouldn't have them...but is this true? I find two
problems with this claim:
1. My opponent didn't offer any biblical verses to support this.
After all, if the Bible is the only place to find logic, wouldn't he
have posted a verse saying as much? And since when does my opponent
argue about the Bible without quoting it? This makes his argument seem
2. If we only got reason and logic from the Bible, then that would
mean that all atheists and all followers of non-biblical religions are
incapable of thinking logically (since they don't use the Bible). But
we all know from experience that this is not true. History also proves
my opponent's claim false. Famous philosopher Bertrand Russell was a
logician AND an agnostic.  This proves one does not have to use
the Bible to use logic and reason.
My opponent has asked me to show examples of him giving us his own
interpretation of scripture. I am happy to oblige:
1. "This verse explains... (2 Corinthians 5:17)
2. "But what John is referring to here... (1 John 5:18)
3. "Only Christians inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
The passage doesn't say that. This is an interpretation.
4. "The passage above shows.." (Galatians 5:16-23)
So, we clearly see that Con wasn't "relaying God's message", he was
relaying his OWN message. And because he's using his own message, it's
fair to accuse him of engaging in a logical fallacy.
No True Scotsman
Since we've established that my opponent was using his own arguments,
then they're subject to scrutiny if they are based on a logical
fallacy. His are. As I explained in round two, my opponent is guilty
of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and as such, his arguments should be
Biblical Passages/ DELIBERATE SIN
I will now go over the new verses Con brought up.
Hebrews 10:26 "For if we go on sinning deliberately..."
This verse actually supports MY CLAIMS concerning the scenario I laid
out. First, I'd like to point out how scripture is posing a "what if"
here. I guess my opponent no longer has a problem with "what ifs".
Second, this verse only condemns those who keep on sinning
"deliberately". So my question remains... What if a Christian, whose
practicing homosexuality, is NOT aware that his actions are sinful? He
couldn't be defined as someone who keeps on sinning "deliberately", and
therefore could still be considered a Christian.
Basically, the Bible and my opponent AGREE WITH ME! Only those who
"DELIBERATELY" offend God are condemned. Those who do it
unintentionally are definitely still considered Christians. This
includes at least some practicing homosexuals.
I thank my opponent for admitting that I made "a good point" concerning
this passage. I will now continue my good point... My opponent
expanded the passage, but one thing he didn't do was answer my question
concerning if, after becoming Christian, has he ever done anything
mentioned in the passage? I find this quite an interesting dodge. I
for one have been a Christian most of my life, and have engaged in some
of those things... jealousy, fits of anger, been impatient, been
unkind. I imagine most of us have. So if we can still consider
ourselves Christians, despite violating this passage, I see no reason
why those who violate the "sexual" sin can't still be Christian.
Remember, according to my opponent, you're still Christian if you don't
do it deliberately.
Rule of Speculation
As I pointed out, this rule is for lawyers participating in trials.
It's not among the rules of a formal debate. If it were, certainly my
opponent would have referenced it. So since this isn't a trial, and
we're not lawyers, it doesn't apply to us. With this in mind, I've not
violated any rule or custom by imagining scenarios where a practicing
homosexual "can" be a Christian. My opponent has done the opposite. He
has now speculated about scenarios where a practicing homosexual would
be deliberately sinning. He has asked me to comment about these. Here
is my response: None of your scenarios are guaranteed to happen,
therefore, my scenarios are still possible. And if they're possible,
then a practicing homosexual CAN be a Christian.
Is Simply Posting Scripture an Argument?
No it's not. It must be interpreted. The very fact that my opponent and I disagree with what the passages mean is proof of this reality. The very fact that there are some 41,000 Christian denominations (none of them agreeing completely on what the Bible says) is proof of this. . This is why my opponent should not condemn me for using logic and reason. This is especially true since my opponent isn't just "relaying" God's message. As I have clearly shown, he's offering his own interpretation. He's the one passing judgment, and is therefore violating the "Judge not" commandment. Despite this violation of "judge not lest he be judged" command, my opponent still calls himself Christian. Because of this, I don't see how he can possibly deny a practicing homosexual the same right. The fact that he slings a bunch of verses on the subject of judging only helps my case. Some say yes, some say no, some say sometimes... So how can we say anything with certainty when it comes to this issue?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (MEN who practice homosexuality)
My opponent inexplicably criticizes me for pointing out how this passage actually supports MY CLAIM. He then says I should have looked up other translations. This is rather curious. HE'S the one who chose the interpretation that only condemns male homosexuals. He shouldn't blame me for his poor choices. He made another one when he originally posted 1 Timothy 1:8-11. In it, my opponent CHOSE to bold the part that condemns "men who practice homosexuality". AGAIN, my opponent has undercut his own case by posting a verse that allows for the practicing FEMALE homosexual to be Christian. My opponent finds this whole line of argument funny. I have to say I agree with him. I find it funny how my opponent is now trying to distance himself from the very passages HE posted by pointing us to other interpretations. The fact that he's doing this leads me to a question: Exactly how good is my opponent at "relaying God's message" if he has to keep revising it?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
I argue that this applies to practicing homosexuals. I don't see anywhere in the verse that says "except for practicing homosexuals."
Why should the voters vote for me? Ultimately it's because my opponent made my case for me. He kept giving practicing homosexuals a way out. Whether it was saying that Christians can keep on sinning, as long as it's not deliberate, or by posting verses that only condemned male homosexuals... My opponent kept setting up scenarios where a practicing homosexual CAN be a Christian. All I did was take advantage of the opportunity.
I believe the choice is clear. Please vote Pro.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|