The Instigator
Zetsubou
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian.*

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,245 times Debate No: 10496
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (54)
Votes (7)

 

Zetsubou

Pro

_____________________________________________________________
>>Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian.<<
_____________________________________________________________

If you believe 5 of the 7 statements below to be incorrect, please take this debate:

Believe:
>>Christianity does not 'hate' anything.
>>Although there may be cases where God condemned people, that still does not represent what God or Christianity is about.

Disagrees with:

>>The Bible supports Death Penalty.
>>The Bible supports inferiority of races.
>>The Bible is against Homosexuality.
>>The Bible is against Fortification outside marriage.
>>The Bible is against certain women's rights.

Don't Post arguments on the First round just select Motions.
johngriswald

Con

As four rounds is too little time/space to give each motion the time it deserves, I will select the following motion: The Bible is against Homosexuality.

But however for this debate I will modify it slightly to mean: I affirm Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, as "against" is far to broad a term. Furthermore I will be taking the CON position on this debate. Meaning that my opponent must assert and clearly prove that the Bible claims that homosexuality is a sin.

For clarity I will pose the following definitions:

sin - Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
God - The holy trinity, meaning God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.
Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).

I would like to thank my opponent for debating this difficult subject and wish him luck on the next round where he will prove his affirmation.
Debate Round No. 1
Zetsubou

Pro

Zetsubou forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Con

Unfortunate, extend my position.
Debate Round No. 2
Zetsubou

Pro

Thank you,

Excuse in my Last turn I was urr…busy…yeah.

I see you have rejected the 7 Options and selected a single motion:
Disagree =/= The Bible is against Homosexuality.

+ You broke a rule… I believe that error falls under Conduct… a Deviation from original rules set. Point to Pro.

________________________________
>>>>>Semitics/Definitions<<<<<
________________________________

Homosexuality: Sexual Acts and Sexual feelings to one's own gender.

Bible: The Christian holy book.

Christian: A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

Christianity: The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. Primarily adopted from Judaism.

Against: A hostile opposition or resistance.

Disagreements due to Definitions

Due to your Motion Selection theses definitions are Irrelevant:

XX-Irrelevant-XX (but citable) ----- Sin - Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

XX-Irrelevant-XX ----- God - The holy trinity, meaning God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

__________________________
Clarity -- Functionals -- Truths
__________________________

<>

This Debate is of and on the Belief the Homosexuality is against
Note that this Debate is not on the belief that Homosexuality is right or wrong, as that it may be perseved in that way.

<>

Equation of Justification:
God via Prophet -->*--> Bible -->**--> Christianity
*Prophets write down the words and teachings of God in the Bible.
**The Bible, the "good" news is the word of God. Christians are basically the adherents of the Bible.
With this rule, the Functional rules of the Bible are what Christianity is against*
Aas the semantics of the term apply.

""""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.""""
Leviticus 20:13

Please don't use semantics. Example: "mankind doesn't mean human..."

Leviticus is the 3rd book of Moses, the book of the Law (Laws of Christianity). The Law of Moses, is the code of Christianity. If one is to break the Law, and the punishment is one to be murdered, is the assumption "if one wishes to kill another, one is against another" incorrect.

Vi Virums (By/The Truths):

-->Action of Homosexuality. ---- Stimulus
-->Act of Killing after recognition of the homosexual action ---- "Against-A hostile opposition or resistance." To kill, killing is hostile.

____________

Resolution affirmed as Undebatable… next.
I suggest you select a second Motion.

Thank you. (Vote Pro)
johngriswald

Con

I appreciate that my opponent has come back in time to finish this debate.

My opponent has the audacity to state that I have been discourteous and am worthy of losing the conduct point.

1. My opponent clearly failed to give a firm resolution in R1. It was vague and could have easily have been interpreted to pick only one contention from the list. Furthermore my opponent's argument that I should debate all 7 resolutions in two rounds (the last round of which should be a concluding round in which no new points are made is ridiculous. 7 resolutions in 2 rounds (1 if you properly use the last round). I merely saved the debate and my opponent has furthered in destroying it by wasting an entire round by forfeit, and even daring to declare that 7 resolutions could be possibly debated in 2 (really 1) round(s).

2. My opponent states: "The Reason their is Space for 5 is that all Propositions are negatable with ease. You failed the moment you except the debate." In the comments section which is extremely arrogant.

"I suggest you select a second Motion."
Same arrogance.

3. My opponent states: "Please don't use semantics. Example: "mankind doesn't mean human...""
My opponent predicts and expects me to use semantical arguments which is also insulting as I have not given any reason for him to put such a warning.

4. My opponent forfeited a round.

For these reasons my opponent should clearly lose the conduct point. The fact that he claims I should lose one is laughable, furthermore the attempt to use his vague resolution as an attack against me is despicable.

"Due to your Motion Selection theses definitions are Irrelevant"
No, they are clearly relevant to the debate, as the two definitions are the two vague terms in your affirmation.

====Argument====

"The Law of Moses, is the code of Christianity"
The law of moses was clearly disbanded when Christ came. See the following verses:

Romans 10: 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version)
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Ephesians 2: 15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

Therefore my opponent's entire argument based on the old testament is irrelevant, vague and misinterpreted. It shows my opponent's clear lack of understanding of Christianity. This is also the reason that Christians are allowed to eat pig, and do many of the things that orthodox Jews aren't allowed to do.

Furthermore Jesus states:

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Clearly the claim that it homosexuality is a sin hangs on neither of these two commandments.

My opponent has acted arrogantly, put forth a half hearted argument that misuses old testament law when it is clearly irrelevant, and has attempted to claim the conduct point as his own when he clearly deserve to lose it.

I suggest you take this debate seriously and put forth an argument that is worth refuting.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Zetsubou

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his interesting "review" of my argument.

Notice: After a Character count my opponent used more time being analectic that arguing, he spent more time reviewing the argument than arguing, I will honor his waste of characters and consider his claims.(1 to Zets).

Also - He has not refuted any of my points, just presented his own; a possible refutation my be his attack on my basis of the Old testament.
_____________
Reply to Review
_____________

1.The terms of a Debate are unto one's skills. If one thinks they are "saving a debate" by their standards, so it be so, but the Instigators rules must be adhered. There are a select terms that are proposed by the Instigator the Contender is obligated to adhere to this, think of it like a Pact of agreement.

My Terms to this debate which you broke:

I) Select five or more of the topics you disagree with and debate them. If one thinks 3 of 4 rounds is insufficient time, with pity… shame.

II)(assume) Debate with skill and not question the consistency of an argument.
Calling my resolve vague still doesn't give you the ability to snap out the rules. The Last round of R1 seems clear enough for a normal assumption.

2.My arrogance? Same can be said about your posts (Zets -1)(John-1):

-Therefore my opponent's entire argument based on the old testament is irrelevant, vague and misinterpreted. It shows my opponent's clear lack of understanding of Christianity
- put forth a half hearted argument that misuses old testament law when it is clearly irrelevant, and has attempted to claim the conduct point as his own when he clearly deserve to lose it.
- I suggest you take this debate seriously and put forth an argument that is worth refuting.

3.Do I need a warning to denounce a possible misconception? Think of it as guidance before you waste you next post. You perishing it as an insult is purely at your fault,is it doubt, maybe?

4.Yes indeed I forfeited a round, I was busy. (-1 to Zets)

4.5. Yes they are irrelevant, Sin and God have no connection to this debate.

Sin is an action against gods will, and though the action of homosexuality is sin it has no connection to this debate which questions the whether Christians are against homosexuality.

God is Christ, not Christians or Christianity, this debate is of the followers of Christ the followed presence is irrelevant.

_____________
Argument
_____________

As I said before he has not refuted by argument, so I'll refute his. I will do this in two parts.

>>God is unchanging<<
The New and Old Testament are of one the same god, for the errors of Paul (see "Of Paul").

I will answer with the famous quote:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

>>Misunderstandings and Of Paul<<

Paul is not a Prophet he is a seer.

If you know these books you would know that these are letters the people of the books name. Paul talks of his time with Jesus as a disciple he talks of his own perception of Christ's word not as a scribe but as a recount, he is uncitable. The word of God is taken from the GOSPELS the Story of Jesus Christ Luke, Mathew, Mark, John. So…

For Romans 10: 4 for Galatians 3:23-25 and Ephesians 2: 15

They are all Letters from Paul to other Christian groups; my Citation overrules the word of Paul.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. -Mathew 5,17

For Matthew 22:36-40

Your argument is that Jesus destroys the old Covenant of Moses in as sense destroys the 10 commandments. Homosexuality falls under the sins of adultery. Jesus says I come to restore the covenant and not to destroy it again Mathew 5:17-19, It's not the first time I've had to use this.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Citations: [ http://en.wikisource.org...(King_James)/]
johngriswald

Con

I would like to reprimand my opponent for his crass, sarcastic, and otherwise rude response to my argument.

"Notice: After a Character count my opponent used more time being analectic that arguing, he spent more time reviewing the argument than arguing, I will honor his waste of characters and consider his claims.(1 to Zets)."

Perhaps you should have posed more points instead of acting so haughty and arrogant if you wanted me to allot more characters to rebutting your contentions instead of reprimanding your rude and condescending attitude towards this debate both in the debate and in the comments section. If you pose one verse as a contention, expect me to refute it using a due amount of characters.

"Also - He has not refuted any of my points, just presented his own"

Ad Nauseam

Source: http://ddofans.com...

"The terms of a Debate are unto one's skills."

Ad Hominem

"but the Instigators rules must be adhered"

Not if they defy simple logic which debating 7 contentions in 1 round does. You're simply using this as a point on why you should win, however I think you'll find that the voters have common sense in abundance.

"think of it like a Pact of agreement"

You very vaguely stated to accept the debate if you agreed with 5 out of 7 of the contentions. This does not mean that anyone would ever believe that you would actually debate all 7 contentions. Next time be clearer in your affirmation. However, expect it to be changed by the contender unless each contention really is simplistic, you start your arguments in the first round, and don't intend on forfeiting a round.

"Calling my resolve vague still doesn't give you the ability to snap out the rules"
Protip: Assumptions are not rules.

"My arrogance? Same can be said about your posts"
There's a difference between being full of yourself and your own abilities, and calling a spade a spade. One verse from the old testament with literally no logical backing or reasoning is extremely half-hearted.

"Do I need a warning to denounce a possible misconception?"
If you are given no reason to denounce something then doing so precludes that you expect me to do it. Which to me is insulting.

"Christians are against homosexuality. God is Christ, not Christians or Christianity, this debate is of the followers of Christ the followed presence is irrelevant."

Pure semantics. Using the word "Christianity and then attempting to make a conclusion that it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ is laughable. Christians follow Christianity. Christianity literally is the teachings of Christ. Therefore it is extremely relevant what the teachings of Christ actually are.

"Your argument is that Jesus destroys the old Covenant of Moses in as sense destroys the 10 commandments. Homosexuality falls under the sins of adultery. Jesus says I come to restore the covenant and not to destroy it again Mathew 5:17-19, It's not the first time I've had to use this."

Never did I say that the old covenant was destroyed LOL. Nor that the 10 commandments are destroyed.

Again: "36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

As you can see both commandments = the 10 commandments

My opponent has failed to show how homosexuality falls under either of these two commandments. Furthermore I fail to see how HOMOSEXUALITY = ADULTERY???? Stating something does not make it show, you actually have to logically back up statements.

You shall have no other gods before me - Love your God
You shall not make for yourself an idol - Love your God
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God - Love your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy - Love Your God
Honor your father and mother - Love your neighbors
You shall not murder - Love your neighbors
You shall not commit adultery - Love your neighbors
You shall not steal - Love your neighbors
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor - Love your neighbors
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife - Love your neighbors
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor - Love your neighbors

Jesus fulfilled the law when he was crucified.

Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version)
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Ephesians 2: 15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

My opponent failed to show how Paul word is equated with the word of God. He has not proven how homosexuality is a sin and instead has acted arrogantly, forfeited a round, and attempted to claim the conduct point as his own. He also has attempted to make the claim that I have broken "a rule" by not debating 7 contentions in one round which never was explicitly stated but for some reason was supposed to be assumed?

In either way my opponent has failed to prove his resolution. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Try

>>>>>Semitics/Definitions<<<<<
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
"Fortification outside marriage."

lol
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
CA (part 2): if eating pork is now an exception to the law, there must be a cause for the exception. If the cause for that exception can be determined, then that cause should be applied equally to every law for the exceptions to be justly allowed. If this were a debate about whether or not it was reasonable to conceive of homosexuality as not a sin per se while maintaining Christian affiliation, I would have given this to Con. However, this is a question of whether or not it is "Christian" to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful, and the answer to that is *clearly* answered by the Bible: yes and no.

Sources: Tied. Both cited the same principal source, and all sources I concede were relevant.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD:

Before and After: Initially I agreed with neither Pro or Con. The resolution, as near as I can tell, was that if you believed five of the seven statements to be wrong, you would be against the position that liberal interpretations of Christianity are incorrect. Pro therefore seems to be convinced that liberal Christians believe: 1. Christianity hates something (opposite/correction of the belief that it hates nothing), 2. God's condemnation represents what humanity is about, 3. the Bible supports the death penalty (opposite/correction of disagreeing with the statement), 4. the Bible supports the inferiority of races, 5. the Bible is against Homosexuality, 6. the Bible is against "Fortification" outside of marriage and 7. the Bible is against certain women's rights. Which, I believe, are generally understood to be either atheist misinterpretations or conservative convictions, not liberal convictions. So I was thoroughly confused and convinced this debate was unarguable. So did Con, apparently, because he decided to change the subject. My before and after is tied. I have no idea what is going on in the resolution, and so I could come to no opinion. I will, however, judge the remainder of the debate as though Con's topic were the correct one, principally to have something to judge, but also because Pro took him up on it.

Conduct: Tied. Changing the resolution without prior approval is bad form. Red Forfeits are also bad. Claiming conduct superiority is bad unless the misconduct is severe. Getting angry about claims regarding conduct is also bad (and needless, even if there are grounds for it). Going back and forth on the conduct vote, of all things, is just patently absurd.

S&G: johngriswald.

CA: Tied. The self-contradictory nature of the Bible means that both debaters are right. The Bible declares that the purity laws do and do not apply. However, I would like to point out that Johngriswald is using his head here: (see part 2)
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
The bible is against Fortification except outside of marriage? Well, that makes sense. When else would you need it? ;P

I'll RFD in a bit.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Ad Nauseam

You have some nerve.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Ok, thank you Kleptin.

I expected to lose Conduct vote anyway. But...

1.FYI..., thats a name for it. You should see me in real life. - Admitted. Back it up? Their not much to back up extremely one sided debate, I gave him an opportunity by using the word "against". -Didn't exspand on it at all.

2. lol, I strongly agree. - Admitted.

3. I admitted that as my error, in debate.

4. Well, It's not his choice is it. If one uses all 8,000 given chracters for 1500(1600-100), to a point why not?

So...I'll keep the tone and use it accordingly.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
S&G: CON, since Pro made *quite* a few spelling errors.
Sources: Tie. I saw Bible quotes from both sides in sufficient quantity.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Arguments: Not a very good performance on either side. However, I place most of the blame on Pro's conduct. Nevertheless, I will judge arguments separately.

1. The vast majority of Pro's third round was nearly unintelligible. It seemed to be structured like a logical argument but lacked coherence and simply did not tie up to the resolution in a way that is easy to understand.

2. In Pro's fourth round, he spent the first portion criticizing Con for not being able to understand his unintelligible third round, without offering any clarification.

3. The vast majority of his last round was spent fighting over the conduct point. Simply impractical, as well as annoying. It wasn't until the very last portion of his last round that Pro made a few rebuttals, but these were easily responded to by CON.

Arguments to CON.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Conduct:

1. The "bored" FYI tone that Pro used throughout the entire debate was quite annoying. This, combined with the fact that his arguments were mid-level quality at best makes it especially annoying. If you're going to be arrogant, at least have what it takes to back it up.

2. Pro has consistently incorporated little statements asserting that voting should be done a particular way. Excuse me, please do not forget that Conduct does not just cover Debater-Debater conduct, but also Debater-Judge conduct. Who are you to be telling us how we are supposed to judge? We will listen to requests, but not demands. Focus on debating.

3. Forfeited a round.

4. Absurd sidetrack. Pro spent a good deal of time derailing the debate on the issue of the 1 motion selection. Con is right, how does Pro expect to argue several motions in 1 debate?

Overall comment: Ditch the tone and the style, it doesn't work in debate. I've tried that myself and was penalized accordingly. Deference, respect, along with confidence. This is what judges respond to.

Conduct to CON.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 7 years ago
innomen
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
ZetsuboujohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16