The Instigator
tehbestest02
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Homosexual Marriage

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...
harrytruman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2016 Category: People
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 87319
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

tehbestest02

Pro

Seeing as you have been against homosexuality, I would like to challenge you to a debate.

Seeing as you think homosexuals should not be able to get married because marriage is a "religious ceremony". With this claim, not only should homosexuals still be able to get married, but atheists, agnostics, etc. should not have the right to get married. Marriage however is not a religious ceremony and should be a ceremony separated from religion. People like you however say things like this, so you don't have to debate. So ignoring that, let's talk about how this affects your religion without me having to know anything about the bible (and I do know a lot about the bible). Bring up "One shall not sleep with a man as one does with a woman. That is an abomination," for all I care. But my first question for you in this debate is: How does this affect you directly, or even just your religion? Please provide evidence with your claim.
harrytruman

Con

First off, what's your religion?
Nextly, marriage originated as a religious institution, not so much any more, but that's how the idea came about. Native American culture, Jewish culture, doesn't matter, it was always religious or spiritual until recently which the homosexual movement who decided to just make it about perversion.
Thirdly, yes, the Torah says that it is an abomination. Obcourse you won't pay much attention to this unless you believe the Torah, but that's your problem, anyway, I seen how this turns out most times:
Con: but it's against the bible! I'm not going to prove anything because blind faith.
Pro: I'm an atheist so I don't care what the bible or morality says!
Con: But God says it's a sin, I'm still not going to prove it because blind faith!
Pro: I don't believe in God because I'm an atheist, even though all the facts point toward there is a God, I don't believe in God because blind faith.
Con: you're going to hell!
Pro: no I'm not.

You see? It's ridiculous! It's so repetitious that it gives me a headache just reading their nonsense!
So, I'm going to take this debate a whole new route and develop a whole new argument, but first, we have established that the Torah bans homosexuality, therefore you have two options to prove it morally acceptable, A prove that the Torah does not mean it is a sin (good luck, abomination= it's a sin), or B prove the Torah inaccurate (good luck with that he he he).

So, my goal here is to prove homosexuality immoral, without the Torah, here are my points:

1; Marriage:
The oldest document defining marriage is the Torah, there for the Torah holds the claim to marriage, marriage is owned and patented by the Torah, if we were to apply this to US Law, it would be like if someone invented something, allowed people to use the patent under a terms of use, someone uses it not like permitted under the terms of use, the inventor sues him, the court decides that using this patent is a fundamental right, and denying someone use of it, even just denying a certain use of it as it violates the terms of use, is discrimination somehow. In real life, this would not happen, rather, the patent violated (homosexuals) would be sued and charged for patent violation, which in the U.S. is punished by 10 years in prison, how are the gay people different?

2; Perversion:
Incest and bestiality are the two other things banned in Leviticus 18 where it bans homosexuality. Every way that liberals justify homosexuality can be just as easily applied to these sins, I could just as easily say that being attracted to animals or to close relatives is innate (even though there is no genetic link to it there for not innate) and it cannot be helped, incestuous people and bestiality practices were born that way. I could say that it occurs in nature sometimes, some animals mate with animals of b other species, some animals mate with relatives, there for bestiality and incest is natural and there for morally acceptable. If someone commits incest or bestiality, it doesn't affect you, there for it should be tolerated. So what if it's banned in the Torah, the Torah also bans eating shrimp.
You see what I'm saying here?
Debate Round No. 1
tehbestest02

Pro

My religion is Atheist. I feel it is best not to get involved in religion, and if I get sent to hell for it, I frankly don't care. I'd rather spend an eternity down there thank surrounded in heaven, by people who hate me.

I see more of how it turns out, for I usually engage in more debates:
Con: It's against my religion, therefor it is justified that it shall not be justified.
Pro: You've been blindly lead to the conclusion of god hating homosexuals, and quoting the Bible won't help.
Con: He still says it's a sin, and I will still keep this conclusion, for I am blindly led by religion.
Pro: He may say it's a sin, but according to those sins, you've sinned a lot too, and we both know that some sins can't be put above other sins. So we both, sin and if we don't repent, we go to hell. But of course I don't believe in him, so all I know, is that I'm going in the ground.
Con:But all the facts lead to there being a god.
Pro:What facts?
Con: Uh... The book says you know he's real, so using that logic, he is real.
Pro: ._. What? That's like saying superman is real in a superman comic book.
Con: You're going to hell.
Pro: Your religion says that you shall love all gods children equally, so you probably are too.

How are the homosexuals exactly violating the the "terms of use"?

Incest:
Homosexuality is not even close to bestiality or incest. Homosexuals stick to the same species, the human race. Bestiality is when someone has sexual attraction to an animal, that they think they have chauvinistic control over. People are not born with the urge to have sex with animals, but are just... experimenting. They take superiority over the animal, and force it to do what they want, pretty much. Incest, according to your religion, has been around since god created the Earth. And incest can cause serious health defects in a child born through it. Homosexuals however can't reproduce with the same sex, and as long as they aren't closely related to each other, no one should care if they have intimacy in the bedroom. Defining people by the sex they have is perverted.

Most will call us perverted for having anal sex, when it's really used in both sexualities. Same goes with oral, and anal oral (tossing salad). Again, saying two men (we're sticking with men for now, seeing as this is the gender most people have a problem with being gay) should not be able to get married to to the type of sex they have is just wrong. And us not being able to reproduce, helps cut down on overpopulation. So your main reason is religion. If everyone doesn't believe in one religion, why do we follow that one, and not another one. Let's say I make up a religion and a billion people follow it. It says that one shall not have a religion based on a god, but however, on evolution. If that gets passed into law, how do you feel?At that point, it would be a valid religion, so there's no reason why they couldn't put it into law, right? Wrong. It goes against peoples rights to be able to have their own beliefs. Your religion, which should be believed by all, or at least followed by all, goes against homosexuals civil rights and liberties. It says they shouldn't be able to have a relationship with another human.

Moving onto "the choice" and the "lifestyle".
Saying that homosexuality is a choice, is equivalent being said about heterosexuality. So once you accept that it was a choice, I will. But we all know it's not. The love I feel does not directly affect you are your religion in any way. You won't get harmed by it, God won't get harmed by it, and if he really hates us for loving another human, send us to hell. If homosexuality is cursed upon us by the devil, there shouldn't be an excuse why god shouldn't be able to get rid of that along with diseases. The Bible is simply a book of fairy tales that has an antagonist that is someone more powerful than the most powerful person, and a protagonist who can't get around the fact that love is love and that some people are different. You know, I'd think he would know that if he actually created us.
harrytruman

Con

"My religion is Atheist. I feel it is best not to get involved in religion, and if I get sent to hell for it, I frankly don't care. I'd rather spend an eternity down there thank surrounded in heaven, by people who hate me."

In Judaism, we don't believe in bell, we believe in a place where bad people get punished for their wrongdoings (what kind of God would he be if he let people get away with whatever), but it's called Gehenna, and you stay there for one year at most and you get punished for wrongdoings, not not believing in God. So the religious Christian jerks who hate atheists would go to Gehenna until they learn to treat people better, not you, meaning heaven won't be filled with people that hate you, and you're not going to shell, at worst your going to Gehenna.

"I see more of how it turns out, for I usually engage in more debates:
Con: It's against my religion, therefor it is justified that it shall not be justified.
Pro: You've been blindly lead to the conclusion of god hating homosexuals, and quoting the Bible won't help.
Con: He still says it's a sin, and I will still keep this conclusion, for I am blindly led by religion.
Pro: He may say it's a sin, but according to those sins, you've sinned a lot too, and we both know that some sins can't be put above other sins. So we both, sin and if we don't repent, we go to hell. But of course I don't believe in him, so all I know, is that I'm going in the ground.
Con:But all the facts lead to there being a god.
Pro:What facts?
Con: Uh... The book says you know he's real, so using that logic, he is real.
Pro: ._. What? That's like saying superman is real in a superman comic book.
Con: You're going to hell.
Pro: Your religion says that you shall love all gods children equally, so you probably are too."

Yours is pretty accurate.

"How are the homosexuals exactly violating the the "terms of use"?"

Because the Torah is the oldest document holding the claim to marriage, there for the rights to marriage belong to the Torah, part of its definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, there for the homosexuals are using marriage improperly, there for violating a patent.

"Incest:
Homosexuality is not even close to bestiality or incest. Homosexuals stick to the same species, the human race. Bestiality is when someone has sexual attraction to an animal, that they think they have chauvinistic control over. People are not born with the urge to have sex with animals, but are just... experimenting. They take superiority over the animal, and force it to do what they want, pretty much. Incest, according to your religion, has been around since god created the Earth. And incest can cause serious health defects in a child born through it. Homosexuals however can't reproduce with the same sex, and as long as they aren't closely related to each other, no one should care if they have intimacy in the bedroom. Defining people by the sex they have is perverted."

I could say bestiality is nowhere close to homosexuality because at least the people who practice bestiality stick to the same gender, you see how this works? I could also say the gay people are just experimenting and were not born gay either.
As far as incest is concerned, it isn't immoral just because of the genetic defects, it's immoral because you have to have a really tainted mind to look at your siblings as attractive, just like you would have to have a really tainted mind to look at people of the same gender as attractive.

"Most will call us perverted for having anal sex, when it's really used in both sexualities. Same goes with oral, and anal oral (tossing salad). Again, saying two men (we're sticking with men for now, seeing as this is the gender most people have a problem with being gay) should not be able to get married to to the type of sex they have is just wrong. And us not being able to reproduce, helps cut down on overpopulation. So your main reason is religion. If everyone doesn't believe in one religion, why do we follow that one, and not another one. Let's say I make up a religion and a billion people follow it. It says that one shall not have a religion based on a god, but however, on evolution. If that gets passed into law, how do you feel?At that point, it would be a valid religion, so there's no reason why they couldn't put it into law, right? Wrong. It goes against peoples rights to be able to have their own beliefs. Your religion, which should be believed by all, or at least followed by all, goes against homosexuals civil rights and liberties. It says they shouldn't be able to have a relationship with another human."

Well actually passing that law would undermine the universal right to the freedom of idea, preventing homosexuals from having a certain kind of marriage is not undermining any liberties, there is no fundamental right to marriage. According to John Locke, there are 3 fundamental rights, Life, Liberty, and Property, I separated them into 10 fundamental rights, but the point is, marriage is not on either lists, there for not a fundamental right.
And I am not advocating for homosexuals to lost their civil liberties, by all means they should have them, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, the right to idea, the right to bear arms etc, no one is violating these any more than they are to everyone else. And as far as relationships are concerned, I agree partially, we should not arrest gay people for having relations, I am only advocating that the goveronment should not acknowledge their relationships.

"Moving onto "the choice" and the "lifestyle".
Saying that homosexuality is a choice, is equivalent being said about heterosexuality. So once you accept that it was a choice, I will. But we all know it's not. The love I feel does not directly affect you are your religion in any way. You won't get harmed by it, God won't get harmed by it, and if he really hates us for loving another human, send us to hell. If homosexuality is cursed upon us by the devil, there shouldn't be an excuse why god shouldn't be able to get rid of that along with diseases. The Bible is simply a book of fairy tales that has an antagonist that is someone more powerful than the most powerful person, and a protagonist who can't get around the fact that love is love and that some people are different. You know, I'd think he would know that if he actually created us."

What is this with you and hell? There's no such thing as shell, only Gehenna, so the gay people are going to Gegenna for I don't know how long, unless they change, but if not, they will have to serve their punishment out.
Anyway, love is love is a ridiculous statement, by that logic, adultery and cheating on your wife is OK too because love is love! Or it's not hurting anyone, or I can't help it! I was born this way! Same old same old excuses, when the Nazis got caught, all the Nazi officers said the same thing, I don't have a choice, I was told too, not my fault.
And some people are different, so? Being different doesn't make you unable to resist sinning, for example, I was born a human, there for I was born with the ability to get angry, there for I can kill because they- I was born this way, I can't help getting angry.
But I can help , acting upon it, just like the homosexuals.
Debate Round No. 2
tehbestest02

Pro

Again, Gehenna would still require god to hate homosexuals, which he doesn't. People just have selective hearing and reading when it comes to religion. As for us violating terms and use, definitions change, and overall,, everything changes. The actual, modern, definition is: "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." No I don't see how your bestiality claim works. You never addressed how the animals have no way of communicating, and find it very hard to fight back, making it immoral. I agree totally with you on the incest one. Passing the law wouldn't undermine the universal right to the freedom of idea, because not passing the law prevents homosexuals having "ligament" weddings. If for some reason you have the right to it, we should too. So why exactly shouldn't the government acknowledge our relationships, but freely acknowledge yours. That's saying you are superior to us, but god says all his children were equal. Ones not more superior than the other. I don't see why homosexuals would have to go to Gehenna for such an idiotic thing. They loved a human, in which they had full right to, and then they have to be punished? Adultery and cheating are different than homosexuality and heterosexuality. Both of those condone the usage of finding a mate, and then finding someone else off to he side. The Nazis simply had a choice. Hating someone is a choice, you aren't born hating someone. You learn something about them, and then you base what to do off of that. If this was a "choice", when did you choose to be heterosexual? Your debates have nothing to do with anything close to homosexuality. Yours is about having more than one person you are in love with, or killing people or forcing animals to have sex. It's not like we're pushing our homosexuality onto you in any way, so why do you find it such a big offense for someone to be different to you, to have an attraction towards someone else? And at the end of the day, this debate relies strictly on the genitalia that me, and the person I like have. You know that feeling when you have an attraction towards a girl? That's literally what homosexuals fell, but for the same sex. And don't try to pull anymore of your bestiality bull. That's not what this debate is about.
harrytruman

Con

"Again, Gehenna would still require god to hate homosexuals, which he doesn't. People just have selective hearing and reading when it comes to religion."

No, Gehenna would not imply that G-d hates homosexuals, it would imply that they lived a sinful life and receive punishment as a result. You should really read your Torah before starting a debate on the topic. There is a few verses from the Torah on this matter, Ezekiel 18:21-23:
"But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

"As for us violating terms and use, definitions change, and overall, everything changes. The actual, modern, definition is: "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."

It doesn"t matter what the dictionary companies decided was the definition of marriage, the real definition of marriage that has always been the definition of marriage, in Native American Culture, Jewish Culture, Bushmen, Aborigine, or any other culture aside from Roman and Hindu cultures, was ALWAYS between a man and a woman. The dictionary companies are not the law, this is how it has always been.

"No I don't see how your bestiality claim works. You never addressed how the animals have no way of communicating, and find it very hard to fight back, making it immoral. I agree totally with you on the incest one."

So you think beastiality immoral because it counts as rape, so by your definition, I could have sex with animals provided they didn"t care? You fail to address this, no one in their right mind would see their pet as attractive, therefor beastiality is perverse, just like no one in their right mind would look at someone of the same gender as attractive, because they know the natural order of things and they know that violation of it is called perversion.

"Passing the law wouldn't undermine the universal right to the freedom of idea, because not passing the law prevents homosexuals having "ligament" weddings. If for some reason you have the right to it, we should too. So why exactly shouldn't the government acknowledge our relationships, but freely acknowledge yours. That's saying you are superior to us, but god says all his children were equal."

I am arguing that the government should not acknowledge a certain type of relationship as this type is not legitimate, because it is between two people of the same gender. There is a difference between not acknowledging a relationship because its style is immoral, and not acknowledging a relationship because of the people in the relationship.
Saying this would be like saying that G-d discriminated against Cain because he accepted Abel"s offering but not Cain"s, and that G-d acknowledged Abel"s offering but not Cain"s. This would fit perfectly with your argument, and someone might fall for it unless you pointed out it had nothing to do with Cain, it had to do with the thing he was trying to get acknowledged, and this changes everything.

"Ones not more superior than the other. I don't see why homosexuals would have to go to Gehenna for such an idiotic thing. They loved a human, in which they had full right to, and then they have to be punished?"

No one gets punished for loving another human, you get punished for sexual immorality, two totally different things. Besides, their punishment is also dependent on how much they knew about what they were doing, how they were raised, the extent to which they committed the immorality, etc.

"Adultery and cheating are different than homosexuality and heterosexuality. Both of those condone the usage of finding a mate, and then finding someone else off to the side."

Adultery and cheating is wrong because you are having sex with someone you are not supposed to.

"The Nazis simply had a choice. Hating someone is a choice, you aren't born hating someone. You learn something about them, and then you base what to do off of that. If this was a "choice", when did you choose to be heterosexual?"

They had a simple choice; kill the Jews, or don"t, they chose to kill the Jews, even though the Torah says thou shalt not kill. This was repeated, the homosexuals had a simple choice; sleep with someone of the same gender, or don"t, they chose to sleep with someone of the same gender, even though the Torah says it"s an abomination.
When did I chose to be heterosexual? Actually, I chose to not marry and be like Nikola Tesla, and just as easily I could chose to marry, I could chose to marry a man or a woman, but rather I chose to not marry.

"Your debates have nothing to do with anything close to homosexuality. Yours is about having more than one person you are in love with, or killing people or forcing animals to have sex. It's not like we're pushing our homosexuality onto you in any way, so why do you find it such a big offense for someone to be different to you, to have an attraction towards someone else?"

I don"t have an issue with people being different from me or being attracted to the same gender, what I have an issue with is sexual perversion and people trying to excuse themselves by saying that they were "born that way."

"And at the end of the day, this debate relies strictly on the genitalia that me, and the person I like have. You know that feeling when you have an attraction towards a girl? That's literally what homosexuals fell, but for the same sex. And don't try to pull anymore of your bestiality bull. That's not what this debate is about."

Their brain malfunctions and causes them to be attracted to the same gender, this doesn"t excuse acting upon it, any more than being angry excuses acting upon that.
Debate Round No. 3
tehbestest02

Pro

tehbestest02 forfeited this round.
harrytruman

Con

Just when the debate was getting good! No!
Debate Round No. 4
tehbestest02

Pro

It's not like either of us is going to win, plus I have a lot of work to do for school.
harrytruman

Con

I will take this round as an opportunity to clarify my argument further.
I do not believe that G-d hates Homosexuals, he does not, and any christian pastor that tries to teach other wise, or that G-d has "disowned" the homosexuals is lying to you. They are full of deceit and they are teaching things completely foreign to the Torah.
The same goes too with anyone who hates homosexuals, Ibid 19:17 says very clearly:
"Do NOT hate your brother in your heart."
We also see a verse that disproves "G-d disowning homosexuals" in Ezekiel 18:4:
"For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child"both alike belong to me."

If you skip ahead to Ezekiel 18:21-23, as I have cited in round 3, it says:
"But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

There is only 2 things recorded in the Torah that G-d hates, neither is a homosexual, a false whiteness, and someone who stirs up conflict in a community, as far as I am concerned, these pastors can be classified as such. The only feeling G-d has toward the homosexuals right now is not hate, only disappointment, and he would really rather them just clean up their lifestyle. I want to clarify this to the general public, so they know very well G-d's stance on the issue, and they know that what these pastors are teaching is false.
With that being said, Gehenom as punishment does not mean G-d hates the homosexuals, in fact according to Proverbs 13:24:
"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

Seeing as though discipline is evident, I would recommend that they turn from their current lifestyle to avoid this, but it has nothing to do with hate.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
Really? Because- last I checked I provided a big article to back up my claims, you never responded to this article.
I talked about these non-prophecies before, let's see these verses,
1). Micah 5:2 is not referring to the Meshiach, it is referring to a general, a military leader, who will expel the enemies of Israel, and it was fulfilled a long time ago, and even if it was a prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus was never a General, he was a wandering healer and preacher.
2). Isaiah 7:14, I seen this before, number one, the word used for virgin is Almah, which means a young lady, not a virgin, also, Jesus's name was Yeshua, NOT Emanuel, and this was not a prophecy of the Messiah, it was a sign given to Isaiah to show that the enemies of Israel would be expelled, it was a short term prophecy an was already fulfilled.
3). Genesis 12:3 is the promise G-d made to Avram, the covenant, not a prophecy of the Messiah, and I don't even know how Jesus would fulfill this even if it was, did he curse those who curse the Jews and bless those who bless them?
4). Genesis 17:19 is the promise of Isaac being born, not a prophecy of the Messiah.
5). Genesis 21:12 is G-d telling Avram to kick Ishmael out, oh yeah, and to listen to whatever his wife tells him. Not a prophecy of the Messiah.
6). Numbers 24:17 is a verse saying that G-d will give the Jews victory over the Moabites, not prophecy of the Messiah.
7). I would like to rebuttal the rest of your nonsense, but I haven't the space here on the comment or the time, maybe later.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Sigh, your as blind as a new born babe. harrytruman..... go back to scriptures and read Micah 5:2,Isaiah 7:14, Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18, Genesis 17:19, Genesis 21:12, Numbers 24:17, Genesis 49:10, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, Isaiah 9:7, Psalm 45:6-7, Daniel 2:44, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31:15, Isaiah 40:3-5, Psalm 69:8, Isaiah 53:3, Deuteronomy 18:15, Malachi 4:5-6, Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 11:1, Isaiah 9:1-2, Psalm 78:2-4, Isaiah 6:9-10, Isaiah 61:1-2, Psalm 110:4, Psalm 2:6, Zechariah 9:9, Psalm 8:2, Psalm 41:9, Zechariah 11:12-13, Psalm 35:11, Isaiah 53:7, Isaiah 50:6, Psalm 35:19, Psalm 69:4, Isaiah 53:12, Psalm 69:21, Psalm 22:16, Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:7-8, Psalm 22:18, Exodus 12:46, Psalm 34:20, Psalm 22:1, Psalm 109:4, Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 53:9, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 49:15, Psalm 24:7-10, Psalm 68:18, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 53:5-12. All of these were fulfilled in Christ. You want salvation? Work for it harrytruman .... work for it. I must be going many to try to save, before Christ comes,maybe I'll run into you again somewhere. good bye!
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
Made no comments relevant to this statement of yours.
You are saying, that I should believe what the New Testament says, because that is what G-d says, I ask you to PROVE to me that this is what G-d says, you say I should just believe it, because G-d says so- this is a circular argument and I can easily get it from Muslims, the same EXACT doctrines, so you tell me why I should accept your doctrine from you, but not from Muslims, you tell me how your claim is more relevant than the Muslims.
I could really care less what is an Atheist statement, I make the logical statement that makes sense, I believe what can be proven, not what some book tells me. That G-d exists- that can be proven, that the Torah is diving- that can be proven, what you are saying- that cannot be proven.
The Torah has no flaws whatsoever, therefor we KNOW that it came from G-d, the New Testament is full of flaws, therefor we NOW it came from man, the Qur'an is full of evil, therefor we KNOW it came from Satan.
Also, your statement is completely nonsensical, for one it assumes that Jesus is the only acceptable atonement for sins, what whoever wrote this forgot to include is that A Jesus CANNOT be a sin offering because he is a human, an unclean animal, he is a male and male rams are NEVER used for sin offerings.
B A sin offering only goes for 1 person, NOT the entire human race.
C there are many verses that imply that good deeds are a atonement for sins, for example, Ezekiel 18:21-22 says:
"But if wicked people turn away from their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done."

Their sins will be forgotten why? Because they are a Christian and some non-existant guy died 2000 years ago? No, because of the righteous things they have done, there you go.
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
Made no comments relevant to this statement of yours.
You are saying, that I should believe what the New Testament says, because that is what G-d says, I ask you to PROVE to me that this is what G-d says, you say I should just believe it, because G-d says so- this is a circular argument and I can easily get it from Muslims, the same EXACT doctrines, so you tell me why I should accept your doctrine from you, but not from Muslims, you tell me how your claim is more relevant than the Muslims.
I could really care less what is an Atheist statement, I make the logical statement that makes sense, I believe what can be proven, not what some book tells me. That G-d exists- that can be proven, that the Torah is diving- that can be proven, what you are saying- that cannot be proven.
The Torah has no flaws whatsoever, therefor we KNOW that it came from G-d, the New Testament is full of flaws, therefor we NOW it came from man, the Qur'an is full of evil, therefor we KNOW it came from Satan.
Also, your statement is completely nonsensical, for one it assumes that Jesus is the only acceptable atonement for sins, what whoever wrote this forgot to include is that A Jesus CANNOT be a sin offering because he is a human, an unclean animal, he is a male and male rams are NEVER used for sin offerings.
B A sin offering only goes for 1 person, NOT the entire human race.
C there are many verses that imply that good deeds are a atonement for sins, for example, Ezekiel 18:21-22 says:
"But if wicked people turn away from their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done."

Their sins will be forgotten why? Because they are a Christian and some non-existant guy died 2000 years ago? No, because of the righteous things they have done, there you go.
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
Made no comments relevant to this statement of yours.
You are saying, that I should believe what the New Testament says, because that is what G-d says, I ask you to PROVE to me that this is what G-d says, you say I should just believe it, because G-d says so- this is a circular argument and I can easily get it from Muslims, the same EXACT doctrines, so you tell me why I should accept your doctrine from you, but not from Muslims, you tell me how your claim is more relevant than the Muslims.
I could really care less what is an Atheist statement, I make the logical statement that makes sense, I believe what can be proven, not what some book tells me. That G-d exists- that can be proven, that the Torah is diving- that can be proven, what you are saying- that cannot be proven.
The Torah has no flaws whatsoever, therefor we KNOW that it came from G-d, the New Testament is full of flaws, therefor we NOW it came from man, the Qur'an is full of evil, therefor we KNOW it came from Satan.
Also, your statement is completely nonsensical, for one it assumes that Jesus is the only acceptable atonement for sins, what whoever wrote this forgot to include is that A Jesus CANNOT be a sin offering because he is a human, an unclean animal, he is a male and male rams are NEVER used for sin offerings.
B A sin offering only goes for 1 person, NOT the entire human race.
C there are many verses that imply that good deeds are a atonement for sins, for example, Ezekiel 18:21-22 says:
"But if wicked people turn away from their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done."

Their sins will be forgotten why? Because they are a Christian and some non-existant guy died 2000 years ago? No, because of the righteous things they have done, there you go.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Remember..... the difference is that I send you BACK to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His scriptures and to no other do I send you. I do not send you to webpages, where you can be swayed by the cleverness of tongue. where interpretation has been done by those who have polluted Gods words with their own, beliefs, wants and desires. Gods words are spiritually discerned and only requires two who seek the Lord together, that God may reveal Himself to His Children. It is not appropriate to cease moving towards God simply because YOU do not understand. Is that not what Faith is about? Come, we will seek Him together, using the word of God alone, no websites, no outside interpretations, just the leading of the Holy Spirit!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Isaiah 9:16 Those who guide this people mislead them, and those who are guided are led astray.
stop listening to opinions, you are responsible to God to study the word of God yourself. You are responsible to pray before God and ask for guidance and spiritual discernment. God teaches you, not people. Too many opinions out there which is why it is your responsibility to seek Him. You must stop being tossed about like a small boat in a big see. Gods word interprets itself.Because Gods people go to man for interpretation of Gods word is precisiely why we have so many differing religions. If you want to be rekigious, fine keep going like you are. IF you want to be a BELIEVER, go directly to God in prayer, fasting and for ALL interpretation of scripture, SCRIPTURE interprets scripture, but it is your responsibility to look. Are you a servant of God, or is God servant too you?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
harrytruman harrytruman That IS an Atheist statement .... shame on you! Who are YOU to question God. Can you tell God where the winds are stored? Can YOU change one hair of your head white or black, can YOU add a single day to your life! God does NOT care what you think id Right or wrong. You fail to think of God as YOUR God, and have placed in a subservient position in your life. no wonder your still blind! You answer to God my Friend God does not answer to you, God does not require your approval of His actions, YOU require approval from Him for yours .... see how that works?
SIGH .... Okay lets take it one at a time.
the wages of sin is DEATH ...... there are 2 kinds of Death, human death which is common to all, Then there's the wages of sin Living which is the second death (separation from God).
Non Christians Die and go to Hell no because they do not believe, they go to Hell for living IN SIN.
REMEMBER the wages of sin IS HELL or the second death ..... spiritual Death, separation FROM God. Christians that have accepted the lamb of God do not experience a second death, because messiah paid the price we could not pay, He was the sacrificial Lamb, He bore our sins for the remission of sin. Without His atonement, we face God in ourselves, and all are our good works are as filthy rags before a righteous God! So you see the Non-Christian has Chosen to refuse Christ sacrifice in atonement of sin. THAT"S why they go to Hell, they live a life of sin, they HAVE no atonement, punishment is separation from God since they make NO sacrifice to atone for sin... wages must be paid. God would not be a righteous God if He did not stand by His own word ... would he?
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
Again, I get the same response from Muslims, if you believe that I should accept this "logic" from you, give me one good reason why I should not accept it from Muslims.

Alright let's put this argument of yours into perspective, I say the New Testament says that non-Christians go to hell for no other reason, I say it is immoral, you say it is not because G-d says so, I ask you how you know G-d says so, you say G-d says so, until you can prove this is what G-d said, this argument is going nowhere.

And there is MANY reasons why I do not believe in Jesus, here is the link to our argument:
https://docs.google.com...
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
harrytruman: Again, you have missed the point entirely. God requires us, that includes you to stand by His word, not by yours, God does not ask for our opinion in matters of worship. God requires obedience and trust! He isn't asking YOU what you think is Right, He asks and expects your submission and obedience, That's the total point. You are basing literally all of your belief on what YOU THINK is right or wrong? Go back to your study and FIND any scripture in the old testament that EVER says you are to lean on your OWN understanding? The evidence of Christ exist in the holy scriptures ..... go back to the old testament and read it again ..... then ask yourself, is there any REASON you should NOT believe in Jesus? Is there any actual REASON that you should NOT believe in Jesus? Base it only on the old testament that's fine, and you will see there IS no real factual reason that you should not be believing in Jesus. Search again my friend .... search again. God requires your obedience not what might or might not make sense to you. Though the world stand against Him, we stand with Him.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
tehbestest02harrytrumanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 9 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
tehbestest02harrytrumanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.