The Instigator
KJVPrewrather
Con (against)
The Contender
m.brussel92
Pro (for)

Does Romans 1:26-27 teach gainst same sex marriage is a sin?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
m.brussel92 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 294 times Debate No: 105257
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

KJVPrewrather

Con

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
m.brussel92

Pro

Yes, absolutely. Romans 1:26 is only one of many examples where the Bible condemns same-sex relations.
Debate Round No. 1
KJVPrewrather

Con

I can prove you wrong. These passages are about promiscuity, premarital sex, and religious prostitution. From gaychristian101.com:
The context of Romans 1 is idolatry and worship of false gods, not lesbians, not gays, not homosexuality.
As well as: Context is important, as well as these links: http://www.gaychristian101.com...
Later in Romans 1: 31: http://www.gaychristian101.com... we find out that: Without natural affection, O40;`3;`4;_9;`1;^7;_9;`2; astorgos,
is never used in the Bible to refer to homosexuals.
The importance of using any Bible translation or verse under strict scrutiny is clear. We can also consult the following exceprts regarding Romans 1:26-27: To understand the Bible, we must factor in the biblical, cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context. In Romans 1:26-27, the context isn't two gay guys or two gay gals who fall in love and covenant to spend their lives together as a couple.

1. The biblical context is Paul making an argument against idolatry by summing up the Old Testament record of pagan Gentile worship, not homosexuality, not gays and lesbians, not transsexuals.

2. The cultural context is the greatest pagan city of the ancient world, an idolatrous tableau featuring hundreds of pagan temples where multitudes worshiped false gods.

3. The doctrinal context is righteousness. God requires righteousness for salvation. We lack righteousness, as evidenced by the pagan idolatry Paul references. God provides righteousness as a free gift to everyone who wants it, including pagan idolaters.

4. The historical context is mid-first century Rome about 25 years after the resurrection of Christ, where the main problem was idolatrous worship of false gods, not gays, not lesbians not trangendered people.

5. The linguistic context is Paul using the Greek word, akatharsian, in Romans 1:24 and 6:19, the same word used in the Greek Septuagint to describe idolatry and shrine prostitution.
Paul drives home his point by using the Greek word latreu!3; in v. 25, which we translate as, served. This word, in the Greek Septuagint, always refers to serving false gods. Paul used these words with purpose, to indicate he was referring to shrine prostitutes and their unholy worship of false gods.
Paul further drives home his point by using the phrase, arsenes en arsesin in v. 27 or men with men. This reminds us of arseno in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, clear references to shrine prostitutes.

6. The religious context is Cybele, the Phrygian mother goddess who was worshiped by temple prostitutes in at least six of Cybele's pagan temples in Rome in the mid-first century AD.
My conclusion: The evidence is clear that Romans 1:26-27,31 do NOT condemn same sex marriage.
m.brussel92

Pro

Now, in all of this, what I believe that you are entirely missing out on on the sequence of events in Romans 1.

Paul clearly states that the people "exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" and that therefore "God gave them over to shameful lusts" and what are those lusts? Paul tells us precisely what they are: the women exchanging the natural relations for unnatural ones - and this may seem unclear, what are unnatural sexual relations? Well this is clarified in the very next verse, where Paul states that "in the same way" the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

From this, we can tell very clearly that God made them that way because they rejected him, not vice versa. In addition to that, Paul clearly defines these types of relationships as unnatural relations, and why you would place a question mark at that point, is beyond me. So I believe that you are wrong in your sequence of events, and that you seem to have conveniently "ignored" the mentions of natural / unnatural in the text - which clearly come as a consequence of disobedience towards God.
Debate Round No. 2
KJVPrewrather

Con

Romans 1:1: https://www.biblegateway.com...
You can read for yourself.
m.brussel92

Pro

I have read for Romans 1, and I have written a response based upon what I have read. I don't see what you are trying to say, but what I can tell, is that you are wasting precious debate space by being so vague and making me request further explanation instead of being clear and enabling me to write a counter response immediately.
Debate Round No. 3
KJVPrewrather

Con

I notice your failure to provide evidence for your opinions, yet I have provided my own. Do you have any?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
KJVPrewrather;
SEE?
Posted by GodIsMyRock374 7 months ago
GodIsMyRock374
change the debate to, does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin. Then you'll have a debate on your hands. Or ask if the Mosaic Covenant's damnation of homosexuality is still relevant today. But right now, this debate simply doesn't work. Good luck getting anyone to accept.
Posted by KJVPrewrather 7 months ago
KJVPrewrather
I have proof, you don't.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
KJVPrewrather;
Your debate cannot be accepted by anyone who knows the Bible OR ENGLISH For that matter! Because the subject of Marriage is not addressed or discussed IN that entire Chapter at all!

"Does Romans 1:26-27 teach gainst same sex marriage is a sin?"

The answer IS NO. because it doesn"t MENTION marriage in the entire chapter!

It speaks of curses only! Well not only, Verse 1-7 is greeting, verse 8-17 discuss Paul"s longing to visit Rome, verses 18-to its end speaks of Gods wrath against YOU, backwardseden and the curses you and all like you are under.

Thus your premise is Still no, this chapter does not TEACH on Marriage at all. Of course if you wish ME to accept it you must change it to read ....
"Does Romans 1:26-27 teach marriage ?"

Course then I wouldn"t accept it because that tells me you can"t READ, and I"m wasting my time! Mostly because Your assertion is completely devoid of reason and WITHOUT MERIT as the already Claimed premise!

How can one argue a subject NOT being spoken OF in the entire quoted chapter?

Are you lying about your age? Most adults would already see the stupidity IN your debate. Course not backwardseden cause He"s not really the age he quotes and reminds me of peewee Herman in his responses! Check out some of his profile. You tell me he"s REALLY 56 years old!
Posted by backwardseden 7 months ago
backwardseden
@KJVPrewrather - Oh I'm well aware we both agree. But darling little maggot lice infected disease filled sliced jesus jujitsu's hand grenade weight loss programs such as FollowerofChrist1955whoonlyfollowshimself you do NOT want as an opponent. He is the absolute worst there is, with no edumacation whatsoever, no intelligence, no below the belt areas, a certain cabbage batbrain to go along with his meow mix in the morning.
Posted by KJVPrewrather 7 months ago
KJVPrewrather
Accept my debate, and let's rock!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
KJVPrewrather;
The PROBLEM? Is not the Bible ... the problem is that, you think ..... Human, thus you think with emotions that you are incapable of controlling!

You ARE SLAVE to SIN, and sin will rule you AND your actuons till you arrive in Hell! You cannot defeat it (Sin) you cannot defeat your enemy ... the devil. Between you and the devil, you will lose 100% of the time! He is cunning, he is much wiser, not even WE (Christians) stand a chance against Him!

That having been said ... He the devil, must contend with God when it comes to Christians! Satan HAS NO POWER over US, by reason of Him who Dwells within US.
1 John 4:4
But you belong to God, my dear children. You have already won a victory over those people, because the Spirit who lives in you is greater than the spirit who lives in the world.

The Spirit of God has FREED us from Sin and its bondage! That doesn"t mean we won"t make mistakes but where as YOU LIVE MISTAKES, we only on occasion. Whereas you are UNFORGIVEN, WE ARE forgiven! Whereas YOU SHALL PAY FOR YOUR SIN! Christ has paid IN FULL our sin debt! Whereas YOU shall appear before the judgementof the Great White Throne. WE have no part in that judgement!

There is still time! As your PROOF. Is sourrounded in the thinking of humanity. And humanity, cannot even SEE the Lie that IS Evolution!

When YOU cannot see the OBVIOUS lie? How in the World can anyone ever trust in YOUR judgements?
I "ll prove it? Name justbthe Evolutionary Scientist that actually created acreature we can all see, hold touch and that has produced animal Life by reproductive processess like we do ..by egg!

You will find NONE, because evolution is a lie ... the simple is this ... nothing can crawl out of primordial ooze UNLESS it IS in the visible World. All evolution tests only produced microscopic ... nothing tangible!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
KJVPrewrather;
Romans 1:26-27 isn"t discussing marriage, it discusses a curse placed by God upon the masses. Though YOU HAVE selected only the section YOU wished to discuss, the curse is all encompassing as it continues well PAST the meager section you selected.

God has no Sins He views as worse than any other, save one, and THAT ONE ... is merely unforgivable! To be a Homosexual/Lesbian/athiest/ unbeliever is no worse than being a liar, thief, murderer, or gossip as you ALL inevitably perform in like manner throughout your lifetime ..... SINNING! You see it is not WHAT your doing, it is what you "HAVE NOT "done that CONDEMNS you!

The same Hell awaits you ALL. Are you looking for a particular answer? As to the question of Marriage? There IS NO MARRIAGE eother in Hell nor in Heaven, so the QUESTION? Is inconsequential. You see?
Posted by KJVPrewrather 7 months ago
KJVPrewrather
Relax, I'm on your side, and I have proof. Send this debate to a bigot. Let's rock!
Posted by backwardseden 7 months ago
backwardseden
Where in those verses does it mention ANYTHING at all about marriage or even that its a sin? Just like Leviticus 20:13 mentions nothing about marriage nor a sin either.
"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."
So the answer to your enveloping question is an obvious "no".
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.