The Instigator
pc1114
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Puck
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Gay People Cannot Be Christian

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,328 times Debate No: 8187
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

pc1114

Con

Do not get me wrong, im not gay, but i don't see why this is believed by so many people. I'll let the affirmative start, good luck : )
Puck

Pro

Each argument is distinct from the other - all that needs is a person to believe one.

1. Interpretation of the meaning of homosexual related verses means those so inclined can justify being Christian.

(i) Deuteronomy 23:17-18

These verses have often applied to homosexual behaviour due to mistranslation of root words. Hebrew uses the same noun in its masculine and feminine forms, the words are best translated as temple prostitute and not to do with homosexuality.

Cult prostitution was prevalent at the time. Often fertility cult rituals involved the use of temple prostitues. This is what is being damned.

Genesis 19:4-11

The sin of those of Sodom is explained further in Ezekiel 16:49-50. It relates not to homosexuality but the common behaviour of the men where they planned sexual abuse of the visitors.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13-14

These verses are part of the laws set for Jews of the time designed to emphasise that they were God's chosen. The context of the verse is the prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech. The term 'abomination' is a translation of the Hebrew word relates to idolatrous practices, not sexual specific ones. The comdemnation refers to the practices the Jewish race were to avoid.

Romans 1:26-27

In context, Paul is writing about idolatrous people - those whose practices they place before duty to God. The homosexual activity to which he refers is cult idolatry. He implies that all of the cult worshipers engaged in it - the alternative, if he was writing specifically about homosexual behaviour, is that that would imply all idolatrous people will become homosexual - clearly idiotic. The final part references punishment - the types of sexual diseases that were apparent in those who engaged in these cult practices.

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

'Malakoi' (only used 1 Corinthians) and 'arsenokoites,' which is in both. Malakoi translates as soft. Arsenokoites again references cult prostitution. Verses again relate to cult prostitutes who engaged in both forms of sexual behaviour.

Justifying the context of verses can lead easily to the belief that condemnation of same sex acts was very specific - cult practice - and did not relate to behaviour at large.

==

2. Debate over biblical interpretation means opinion over homosexual behaviour can be seen as a product of its time. There are Christians who follow personal meaning over strict biblical innerancy.

Discussion of pedastry was not uncommon at the time of biblical authors. Writers of the time both criticised and valued e.g. Plato, Philo, Tacitus, Rufus. In the context of the first century then, Biblical authors were merely repeating current wider discourse on the nature of this relationship and not detailing a divinely inspired commandment.

==

3. There are those that argue that the only valid path is a personal relationship with God. Ultimately that leaves internal discourse between the individual and their believed saviour, pertinent only to the individual concerned - including discussion of ones sexuality. Many look at trends in certain derived meaning from Jesus' teachings to justify this approach, and to justify the belief that it homosexuality is ultimately acceptable, given the person as a whole.

==

That will do for now. :)
Debate Round No. 1
pc1114

Con

My opponents arguments are, except for the last one, based on that you cannot be a Christian if you are Gay because it is a sin. If just sin made it so you were not allowed to be a Christian, then absolutely no one would be a Christian. Do you go one day without coveting or wishing you had something that someone else had? Even Christians sin every day, but when we ask forgiveness, God grants it. That doesn't mean we should do whatever we want and then just repent, we should still try not to sin, but we are imperfect and bound to sin, which is where Gods forgiveness comes in.

My opponents third argument states that "There are those that argue that the only valid path is a personal relationship with God. Ultimately that leaves internal discourse between the individual and their believed savior, pertinent only to the individual concerned - including discussion of ones sexuality. Many look at trends in certain derived meaning from Jesus' teachings to justify this approach, and to justify the belief that it homosexuality is ultimately acceptable, given the person as a whole." There may be some who argue that, but that doesn't mean it's true. This is an incorrect appliance of the Bible which states that we should have a personal relationship with God, not just with God though.

Thank You
Puck

Pro

For those still playing at home, I've messed the rounds up so far, so I'm playing Devil's Advocate for the remainder.

=====

The most relevant discussions are those concerning Paul's letters. OT references to homosexuality provide a theological and historical basis to his position; however they are secondary to what he he details.

The most detailed treatment of homosexuality occurs in Rom 1:18-32. Paul's argument is that the whole world, Gentile and Jewish, falls under sin and is in need of the righteousness of God provided in Jesus. From the sin of the Gentile world, Paul indicates God's response - 3 times Paul states that God "gave them over" (v. 24, 26, 28) i.e. God adjudicates sin with sin.

Homosexuality then results from man's departure of the truth. It is a just punishment for exchanging truth for lies (v. 24); the fury of God upon unrighteousness (v. 18). Paul reveals homosexuality as an additional symptom of ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (v. 18). The indictment is clear.

Naural law: "against nature" or "unnatural" (para physin, v. 26) usage of physin in Rom 11:1-14 and 1 Cor 11:4 is not contextually similar to Romans 1 - para physin was common in Jewish usage indicating that which was against the divine design - (Wold; Out of Order, 1998).

Homosexuality is a symptom of a specific problem - that of idolatry. Paul is showing the penalty of idolatry upon a person. Paul is clearly indicates homosexuality is revolting because it exemplifies in sexual terms the rebellion against God. Paul states that God has set the Gentile to be (both male and female) "in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" (v. 24). It is sinful. It violates the divine plan of God - present from creation (see Genesis) - for the union of male and female in marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10
Additional references in the NT make overt condemnation of homosexuality: Words in question (arsenokoitai), and (malakoi) for 1 Cor 6:9 (pornois) for 1 Tim 1:10.

Homosexuality was not novel in Paul's day. His understanding would have been influenced by the Old Testament text and law - hence his usage of arsenokoitai. It reflects the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Use of pornos and malakos strengthens the arguments that Paul was specifically targeting homosexuals. Paul is condemning vice and sin practiced by an unbelieving world, which ought not to be practiced by God's people. These behaviours are specifically "unrighteous" (1 Cor 6:9) and "lawless and rebellious" (1 Tim 1:9).

Why this means you can't be homosexual and Christian:

The Bible has a specific blueprint for life. The Bible has a sure word of truth which not only serves for salvation but specifically equips an individual for all facets of life (1 Tim 4:15-17; 2 Tim 3:16-17).

Divine order is explicitly stated in the opening chapters of Genesis. It is confirmed throughout the rest of the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit endeavours to teach God's plan on marriage and family. Jesus referred to divine order when queried about the divorce and marriage (Matt 19:4-5). Jesus referred to the divine order not only for its permanence, but also for its nature regarding sex - a man for a woman.

Scriptures condemn *any* violation of the divine order, whether through immoralities (1 Cor 6:16-20; 1 Thess 4:1-8; Heb 13:4); breach of God's designed roles (Eph 5:21-33) and through perversion of the sexual roles (Rom 1:18-32; Lev 18:27; 20:13).

Homosexuality is a perversion of the divine order. That's it. Man is fallen. Man is corrupt. Humanity is beset with many infirmities. It is a Christian's role to live life the way God intended it. To condemn homosexuality in all its forms as a perversion of the divine order is necessary. It is not a sign of homophobia or bigotry. It is a Christians position to be on the side of righteousness. For a true Christian - God is truth - and the truth for a Christian is to obey "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16). God is the only relevant referent. His plan is divine order. Christian doctrine demands homosexuals require from Christians and the Church an informed position about their doomed state. Homosexuality is a *state* of sin. It is not analogous to a lustful thought, and envious twinge, a burst of anger, a lie. It is a living constant expression of man's fall, an expression of man's sin and is a state that directly contradicts God's divine plan for humanity. Until they come to repentance and faith in Christ, and transform via Holy Spirit - they are not Christian.
Debate Round No. 2
pc1114

Con

pc1114 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
pc1114

Con

pc1114 forfeited this round.
Puck

Pro

Today's wasted round was brought to you by the letters E and H.
Debate Round No. 4
pc1114

Con

pc1114 forfeited this round.
Puck

Pro

Yay. Another dead debate.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
pc1114: If you are going to forfeit each round - just type your forfeiture as the round.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Gay people cannot be living as Christians. They can be dead Christians though.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Haha yeah - my mistake. I'll play Devil's advocate for this one.
Posted by pc1114 7 years ago
pc1114
Um your supposed to be arguing that Gay people cannot be Christians..... I was kinda wondering....
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
On reading again, maybe not. lol Apparently reading at 4am makes for easy confusion :D
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
pc1114 your R2 makes me think you made an error in choosing Con for this debate, one I may have compounded. If your R2 was merely filler, say so, otherwise I'll assume by the intent of your R2 that I was actually arguing the correct side.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Puck, I think you might want to double check the resolution and the position you're defending on it."

f@^* it ;(

Apologies, pc1114, I'll make arguments supporting my side next rounds. Time to dust off teh old Catholic robes. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
successfully might I add. :)
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Yeah. Even if we are to go about concluding homosexuality itself to be sinful, the fact of the matter is that being sinful is not a condition for not being a Christian. Basically, the resolution is pretty much the equivalent to saying people who have and do tell lies cannot be Christian. Essentially, your defending a seemingly unsupportable position. Of course, I do stress the word "seemingly" as one can always defend a position regardless of what it is. :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Puck, I think you might want to double check the resolution and the position you're defending on it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
pc1114PuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
pc1114PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
pc1114PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:07