The Instigator
bettabreeder
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Gay "Christians" are not true followers of God

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,274 times Debate No: 51718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

bettabreeder

Pro

I am a strong beliver that gay "Christians" are not true true followers of God. If you are agianst my views I highly suggest that you join in the debate.

Rules:
Please try not to forfeit
Be Nice over others views
First round if for accpetion
correct grammar and spelling

Enjoy! :)
Jifpop09

Con

Alright, I'm down for another session of crushing bettabreeder. JK!
Debate Round No. 1
bettabreeder

Pro

First I want to start out with the defiotion of the Bible: The sacred writening of what tells us how to live our lives as a follower of God and how to enter the Kingdom of God.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Easily said, In the Bible its says that if you kill someone its sin. It also says in both the New and Old Testisment that Homosexulilty is sin. So even though Homosexuality isn't killing anyone it is affecting sin. Everybody sins. Homosexuals are always sinning because its their sexual orintain and God intened love to be for a Man and a Women, just like he made the human race.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. -Leviticus 20:13)

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:25-27)
Jifpop09

Con

I am happy to debate this with my opponent, but I will remind him, that when he asks for correct s&g, that he utilizes it himself. I myself am religious, and I believe that little reliable evidence exists for why homosexuals can't follow god. Besides the two quotes that my opponent has provided, and one more he didn't, nothing really proves his resolution. The lord never said homosexuals can't go to heaven, or either did Jesus. My opponents arguments will likely heavily rely on the old testament, which was written by priests, scholars, and politicians. Not the lord directly.

First I want to start out with the defiotion of the Bible: The sacred writening of what tells us how to live our lives as a follower of God and how to enter the Kingdom of God.

You give me a definition that does not match your own. You define the bible as the "sacred writings of what tells us how to live our lives as a follower of god and how to enter the kingdom of god". I have several problems with your definition, so I will go by the definition from Merriam Webster definition....

Bi·ble

G2;bībəl/


noun




    1. 1.


      the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.


      synonyms: (Holy) Scriptures, Holy Writ, Good Book, Book of Books


      "he read the Bible"



Now a much more helpful definition, since my opponent had not defined one, would be the context of what classifies a "true follower.....


fol·low·er


G2;fäl!3;-ər/


noun




    1. 1.



      an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity.

      "a freethinker and follower of Voltaire"


      synonyms: acolyte, assistant, attendant, companion; More





    1. 2.


      a person who moves or travels behind someone or something.



Now that we have successfully developed a guide for future definitions, I will begin my arguments.

In order to successfully render my opponents resolution false, I must provide examples where a homosexual might doubt that the Lord hates homosexuals, so he has justification to follow the lord. I don't think its 100% neccesary to argue if its right or wrong, but whether a homosexual can realistically follow Christ.

Argument 1: Paul said so in Romans and Corinthians

While this seems like a decent argument, we must anaylze who Paul was to gain understanding. Paul, was once known by the name of Saul. He was a notable Jew among the religious community, who often used his influence to persecute Christians following the death of Christ. One day, while on the road to Damascus, he recieved a revelation from Christ. He was blinded for three days, before he finnaly gave himself to Jesus. [1]

Paul lived his whole life raised in a heavily conservative community of Judaism. Often among conservative communities at the time, homosexuals were severely frowned on and persecuted. Paul from birth was taught to hate Jews, before his conversion to Christendom. Is it unreasonable to assume that these writings were influenced from his own views, rather then the ones of god? Jesus never said a single thing about hating homosexuals, so where did St. Paul get this information? From himself obviously.

Argument Two: Levictus is not to keen on Homosexuality

I find this argument incredibly weak. The bible is, according to the definition, a collection of books on god. Do you know who wrote the book of levictus? Not God, Moses, David, or any other prophet. It was written by Jewish priests. Not one priest, many[2]. To say that these priests were speaking directly from god is silly. While many argue that the book was written by Mose's, its generally agreed among scholars that this book had been edited for hundreds of years, way after Mose's death. By the very fact that the book of leviticus has so much corruption, then a homosexual has justifiable reason to ignore its teaching.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 1: The argument that a homosexual can not enter heaven is contradictory

Now, if I had not yet proven that the quotes my opponent has provided are unreliable, then I will proceed to prove my point. Another popular saying said many times by people like peter, is that the only requirment to enter the kingdom of heaven, is to believe that Jesus died for our sins[3]. By that nature, we can assume that as long as a homosexual believes that Jesus died for our sins, then they can enter the kingdom of heaven.

The apostles had been wrong before. For example, didn't Peter originally believe that only people of Jewish ethnic blood could enter heaven? Which is where he was told the information that all you have to do was believe in Jesus. Paul never spoke or learned from Jesus. He was still heavily influenced by Jewish conservatism. Peter realized better, and heeded to gods actual words. And the words that come from the lord himself have more merit then the ones of Paul.
[1] http://christianity.about.com...

[2] http://christianity.about.com...

[3] http://www.openbible.info...

Debate Round No. 2
bettabreeder

Pro

bettabreeder forfeited this round.
Jifpop09

Con

Vote Con or your a terrorist
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Thank you Hematite
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Thanks FinalFan, but can you write a better RFD?
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
The thing is, he was active on this site. He forfeited on purpose :D
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
And who would you be?
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
WOW you guys are just so stupid you guys are just judging someone that makes mistakes like you people.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Just the first half. Yeah, Paul's teachings constitute most of what we do as Christians, but that does not mean he is always right. He preached god, but he never met him. To assume that this one man, who never met god, could issue a statement which contradicts the teachings of Jesus himself is stupid. All you have to do, is love god, and you will go to heaven.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
The Religion Christianity is mostly Paul's Religion about Jesus of Nazareth. So technically, you can't be a gay Christian. But the religion has split into many different denominations and many sects and it is just hypocritical to be gay in some of them. But there are others which are Ok with Homosexuals. If you are just a christian in the sense you follow the teachings of Jesus, then it is possible to be a so called, "True Follower," even if you are a homosexual.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
First round he has ten spelling errors. What a hypocrite
Posted by Weeksie 3 years ago
Weeksie
I'm very interested to see how, or IF, bettabreeder will define what constitutes a "true follower of god." It's automatically assumed that such followers are somehow pious and moral, but if they truly followed their Judeo-Christian gods explicit commands, then they would be anything but.

I doubt he'll even touch upon this equivocation.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Oh, now I get it. Lol! I hope he did that on purpose.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
bettabreederJifpop09Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This is not a vote bomb. Con gets conduct because Pro forfeited. S&G of Con was certainly better. Con made extremely clear and logical arguments that refuted everything Pro laid out and supported his own argument. Con gets sources for unbiased referral to a dictionary and logical interpretation of the context of the bible passages that were brought up.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
bettabreederJifpop09Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Dominated