The Instigator
dnelms77
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexual pastors.. Is this right??

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,067 times Debate No: 78440
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

dnelms77

Con

I do not see how this is a possible without going against what God has laid out for us. God intends for pastors of the church to be leaders in Christ. They are there to help new born believers find their way in their walk... not confuse them.

God describes homosexuality as an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22. Abomination is a pretty strong word to use to describe how he feels about this lifestyle. As a pastor, this is one of many subjects that cannot be skipped. How would a homosexual pastor preach this message? He would have no credibility. He would be living an unnatural lifestyle that goes directly against what God says is righteous. It would cause so much confusion for the new believers. That is not needed in the church. There are enough problems in the church already. We do not need something as absurd as a breathing contradiction in the form of a homosexual pastor. Sorry.

Before Jesus there were practices people would go through with daily to atone for their sins against God. When Jesus came a died for humanity, those old practices went out of the window. The death of Jesus was the birth of the birth of the New Covenant. With the new covenant, the rules (commandments) still apply, but the daily sin repenting practices went away. Just because the new covenant was made does not mean that it is ok to sin all of a sudden. Homosexuality, murder, stealing and other sins alike are still sins in the eyes of God. They are all looked upon equally and hated equally by God. That has never changed. It will never change. The gift of marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2: 22-24). Why defile a beautiful gift that God created to satisfy this unnatural perception of happiness? Why teach it in a place that is filled with new believers that would be confused by the contradiction of the pastor and what the bible says? It is not logical to think this way.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

Thank you, Con. I accept this debate dutifully.

(1) To begin this round for the side of Pro, I will be opening up with some new arguments, and will address the arguments made by Con in section two.

(1A) There is no reason for homosexuals to be unable to serve in churches if those participating in the organized Christian outfit or not free of sin, both in accordance to the Bible itself and in accordance to the laws of Christianity when applied (e.g pretty much anyone who walks into a church has worn two different fabrics, eaten shellfish, cut their hair or shaved).

(1B) There is no reason for homosexuals to be unable to serve in churches as pastors, seeing as not all people involved in the church system seem to be evangelical or very conservative in practicing their faiths; there are very strict and conservative churches but also more progressive and accepting, moderate churches.

(1C) Different sects of Christianity prohibit and promote different things. Christianity is a broad concept of religious philosophy with a variety of different adaptations. The Bible itself having several adaptations, as well. Both adaptations due to language translation /and/ due to the fact that different people leading different religious groups had opposing interpretions - an example of this being the King James version of the Bible, as opposed to other versions.

(2) Con has made some interesting strawman arguments to support their initial claim, which will be addressed below.

(2A) "God describes homosexuality as an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22."

God also describes cutting hair, getting tattooes, body piercings, shaving, eating shellfish and being in the same house as a woman on her period as sins worthy of death.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

As explained in the above link, Leviticus has a series of different laws, most of which are not adhered. The problem is, many of whom are religious tend to cherry-pick scripture and passages in order to satisfy their interests and preserve their personal opinions. If religious folk actually adhered the laws in referenced scripture (Deuteronomy and Leviticus normally), this world will be full of hairy men beating their wives and owning slaves who don't eat shellfish.

It is also described in the Bible that while an adultress was due for stoning, Jesus came and protected her under the premise that none of those whom were going to stone here were without sin. This is from the famous quote, "he who is without sin will cast the first stone", it was at this point that everyone walked off in shame.

(2B) "How would a homosexual pastor preach this message? He would have no credibility. He would be living an unnatural lifestyle that goes directly against what God says is righteous."

There are openly gay priests and bishops in the world who do their job just fine. I am sure there are a handful of priests who are potentially closet homosexuals, as well. It is wrong to assume such people don't already exist.

(2C) "Homosexuality, murder, stealing and other sins alike are still sins in the eyes of God. They are all looked upon equally and hated equally by God."

But apparently God's followers are still able to break a majority of the rules in Leviticus without being reprimanded. Again, so many sins are ignored as a majority of bible-thumping evangelicals cherry-pick their verses.

(2D) "The gift of marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2: 22-24)."

Marriage is not just a religious thing - it is also a legal thing.

Here is a pasted definition of marriage straight out of the dictionary:

mar·riage
G2;merij/
noun
  1. 1.
    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.
    "a happy marriage"
Ahem, as is clearly shown: marriage is a legal union between two people of either the same or opposite sexes (and in some cases, marriages are polygamous.

I wish Con luck in the next round.


Debate Round No. 1
dnelms77

Con

Before I start my round I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge.

(1.A) My problem with your first point is that I never said that a gay person could not serve in the church. Serving in the church and LEADING the church are two different subjects. Sure, a gay person can serve. Any person can serve. To lead the church, it takes years of education and a real understanding of the bible and what it says. Most of the practices my opponent has mentioned were old testament practices that went away with the death of Jesus. Some of them were for moral purposes, not actual guidelines for us to go by. You should be able to decipher the two.

(1.B) Again, I never said that a gay person could not serve in the church. I just feel like they should not lead the church. Any church that allows a gay person into a leadership position is not looked upon in favor in the eyes of God. We are not strict, we just go by what the bible says. He does not describe eating shellfish, cutting hair and other practices alike as an abomination. God never created a homosexual design for marriage. It is just the fine print. Why can't you accept that?

(1.C) Different sects of Christianity have different practices for how their denomination is practiced, but they all promote the same book! Adaptations? The bible does not "adapt" to sin. If the bible was written in a way to do this, then why does God despise sin so much? Why does he describe sin the way he does? If the bible was simply going to "adapt" to sin then there would be no point to the new testament. In fact, if God (the author of the bible) were to do this, then the death of Jesus would have been without purpose. Why would Jesus die for something that was just going to be "adapted" to?

(2.A) "God also describes cutting hair, getting tattoos, body piercing, shaving, eating shellfish and being in the same house as a woman on her period as sins worthy of death."

Ok, God does not describe shaving hair, eating shrimp, tattoos or anything else as an abomination as he does with homosexuality. Here are a few scriptures:

- Leviticus 19:27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.
- Job 1:20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. (A form of worship)
- Numbers 6:18 And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. (A ceremonial practice like I have mentioned)

(2.A cont.) Those are just a few scriptures that show how the two are not looked at as the same. God is consistent with letting his followers know what he likes and what he does not like. If he wanted to make it clear to us that these practices were abominations to Him, then He would have done so here like He does everywhere else in the bible. For the record, when God mentioned everything about menstruation, He was talking about having sex with a woman while she is on her period.. not being in the same house.

(2.B) There would be no credibility with him. How do you not understand that? God is clear with how he feels about this lifestyle choice and is clear with how he designed marriage to be. There probably are openly gay priests that lead churches. I am not ignoring that fact at all. However, it does not make it right for them to be this way. How would those openly gay pastors preach anything about marriage? What scripture would they use? How would the new believers take in the fact that they have read that homosexuality is wrong, but have an openly gay pastor?

(2.C) We as followers of Christ are sinners. We sin everyday. I am part of this just as well as any human being on Earth. This is where our relationship with the Lord comes into play. We trust Him with all of our mind, heart and soul and then we fight the temptation to sin everyday. Sometimes we face trials. We win some. We lose some. We are not perfect at all. We are hilariously far from that. However, we do the best to our ability to go by what God says, not choose what we want to go by. We look for people who will abide by what they are going to be preaching to 100+ people.

(2.D) I am glad you know the copy and paste function on your computer. Thanks for that, but I am well aware of what the dictionary says. I am also aware that marriage is a legal matter as well as it is religious. However, we are talking about religion, not legal aspects of marriage. Let's stay on topic.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

Thank you, Con.

Rebuttals will be as follows:

(1A) "My problem with your first point is that I never said that a gay person could not serve in the church."

Someone being incapable of being a pastor in a church is prohibiting them from participating in a form of servitude to the church. Essentially blockading their ability as an individual to surpass the most basic ranks of the hierarchy, while those whom are deemed more fit by arbitrary, and [in accordance to Con], outdated principles of Christianity's practice, are able to achieve higher tiers for some form of natural supremacy.

"To lead the church, it takes years of education and a real understanding of the bible and what it says."

The problem with this rebuttal is that it can simply be flipped to benefit myself as Pro; it takes years of education and practice within the boundaries of the specific religion [Christianity in this debate], however, homosexuals are not inherently less capable of fulfilling the duty of a pastor under the premise that they have studied. And again, broadly speaking, Christianity has a wide scope - in narrowing that down more, it is notable that some sects of Christianity are open about acceptance of homosexuals in their practices.

http://www.umc.org...
http://www.ibtimes.com...

Along with many LGBTQAA movements coming in from minority groups outside the border of religion, many movements have been pushed throughout history to allow gay pastors to serve in their churches - instead of leaving them to be faithful church-goers who have no chance to do what they wish to.

1B) "He does not describe eating shellfish, cutting hair and other practices alike as an abomination."

Con has very clearly chosen to ignore the provided evidence to support the previous claim.

Again, I will provide a link disproving this claim; that the Bible doesn't somehow banish the act of cutting one's hair or shaving one's face, as well as the consumption of shellfish or other alike practices.

http://hill-kleerup.org...

The above link is yet another source of proof in describing and citing what is banned in Leviticus according to Biblical law. It is also a principle of Christianity that no human is free of sin, so why is homosexuality an exclusively charged sin if no other one is and supposedly repentance gives one access to Heaven regardless of their "unholy" path of life?

(1C) "Different sects of Christianity have different practices for how their denomination is practiced, but they all promote the same book!"

The same book that is also coincidentally interpretated in different means with different content; for two previously stated reasons. Either a) the bible's verses were altered to fulfill the interests of someone who wanted power and for their ideology to spread or b) the bible's verses were altered during linguistic translation.

"If the bible was written in a way to do this, then why does God despise sin so much?"

That's beyond me, but it seems many live in sins that are viewed as worthy of death or even torture yet many Christians at the same time just happen to ignore them.

"In fact, if God (the author of the bible) were to do this, then the death of Jesus would have been without purpose."

Con is literally stating here that God Himself came to earth and wrote the Bible with his own hands; there is no evidence of this and many Christians will say that humanity itself can only be held responsible for the writings of it.

"Ok, God does not describe shaving hair, eating shrimp, tattoos or anything else as an abomination as he does with homosexuality."

This is again ignoring the evidence provided showing the harsh punishments that correspond with the consumption of shellfish, "you will be unclean", and the fact that all sins are apparently equally wrong [one of Con's statements].

"...when God mentioned everything about menstruation, He was talking about having sex with a woman while she is on her period.. not being in the same house."

""When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

Source: http://biblehub.com...

Now it is known that videos are not a traditional source of evidence to use in a debate, however, for the sake of being on the subject of pastors, I will be using a video in which a pastor is doing a speech before a congregation of churchgoers, the subject at hand being the discrimination against homosexuality brought forth so passionately by organized religious groups.

https://www.youtube.com...

I would like for Con to take a moment to listen to this speech by this pastor, and only then grow to understand my protestations in this debate.

"We as followers of Christ are sinners. We sin everyday. I am part of this just as well as any human being on Earth."

So why is it that if everyone sins, a specific group may go under fire? If all sins are equally shamed by God, then how is it excused to exclusively discriminate against homosexuals for their particular sin of a natural-born sexuality?

"I am glad you know the copy and paste function on your computer. Thanks for that, but I am well aware of what the dictionary says. I am also aware that marriage is a legal matter as well as it is religious. However, we are talking about religion, not legal aspects of marriage. Let's stay on topic."

Right, however if marriage has both legal and religious definitions/aspects, then one must know the place of those aspects in certain contexts. Marriage should be a ceremony determined in either a secular or religions manner par the discretion of the couple [this should also depend on the location of the marriage itself], it's not off topic.


In closing: The problem with the majority of Con's argument is that they seem to be avoiding evidence and building a strawman to defend the discrimination against homosexuality, which logically has no backing; if homosexuals are sinners just as well as all followers of Christ, they cannot exclusively be a target for their sins, and all sins must be accounted for.




Debate Round No. 2
dnelms77

Con

(1.A) "however, homosexuals are not inherently less capable of fulfilling the duty of a pastor under the premise that they have studied. And again, broadly speaking, Christianity has a wide scope - in narrowing that down more, it is notable that some sects of Christianity are open about acceptance of homosexuals in their practices."

How can a pastor be gay and lead a church? This is a contradiction. A person who wants to be a pastor is going to go through courses where study on the bible is going to be the primary concern. With that said, you must be crazy to think that passages that discuss marriage will be skipped. Sure, they are open and let homosexual people within their walls, but like I said before, leading the church is different.

(1.B)"He does not describe eating shellfish, cutting hair and other practices alike as an abomination."

To address the first part of this rebuttal, I will refer to the book of Galatians.

- Galatians 3:26-27 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

-Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

(1.B cont.) This is written proof that the ceremonial practices went away with the death of Jesus. His death made us all pure. With being pure, we do not have to practice all of these old testament rituals anymore. Before Jesus, this is what was used to make us pure. Pro has constantly tried to use the old ceremonial practices that went away with the death of Jesus against my claims. Pro has also ignored the scripture I have provided to support my claim.

"It is also a principle of Christianity that no human is free of sin, so why is homosexuality an exclusively charged sin if no other one is and supposedly repentance gives one access to Heaven regardless of their "unholy" path of life?"

(1.B cont.) No human being is free of sin. Every human being is born with sin in their hearts and from birth will never be perfect as God is. However, homosexuality is not under any specific discrimination here. It is just the subject. Any sin leads to an unholy life, as Pro puts it. God hates all sin equally (Romans 1:28 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth) but he loves the sinner (Romans 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.) does this make sense? It is similar to the love that a parent has for their children. They hate when their kids do something wrong, but they still love them. They love the person and hate the action.

(1.C) "The same book that is also coincidentally interpreted in different means with different content; for two previously stated reasons. Either a) the Bible's verses were altered to fulfill the interests of someone who wanted power and for their ideology to spread or b) the Bible's verses were altered during linguistic translation"

The bible was never written to satisfy the wants and desires of other people. In fact, there are different translations because of the present time. People of today's day and age are not really going to catch onto a version of the bible that is written in language for people of the 1800's to understand. It makes sense to have different versions to cater to each generation that is reading it. Also, if you claim that the other versions of the bible were written to give power to others (false) then why has there not been a version that accepts homosexuality? No matter what version of the bible you read, they all stand against homosexuality.

(2.A) "That's beyond me, but it seems many live in sins that are viewed as worthy of death or even torture yet many Christians at the same time just happen to ignore them."

Once again, no one is ignoring sin. We just follow what God tells us. If this were a conversation about something else, then it would go the exact same way.

(2.B) "Con is literally stating here that God Himself came to earth and wrote the Bible with his own hands; there is no evidence of this and many Christians will say that humanity itself can only be held responsible for the writings of it."

Ok, if you had any knowledge of the bible then you would know that God spoke through all people who contributed to the creation of His word. The words of the bible or not the words of the writers, but they are the words of God. As if they were straight from his mouth. So this does make Him the author. He did not literally come down from heaven and write the bible...

(2.C) "This is again ignoring the evidence provided showing the harsh punishments that correspond with the consumption of shellfish, "you will be unclean", and the fact that all sins are apparently equally wrong [one of Con's statements]."

Refer to the first part of point 1.B

(3.A) "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

When the word "touch" is used, God is talking about having sex, not literally touching her.

(3.B) "So why is it that if everyone sins, a specific group may go under fire? If all sins are equally shamed by God, then how is it excused to exclusively discriminate against homosexuals for their particular sin of a natural-born sexuality?"

Refer to the second part of point 1.B

I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to debate today. May the best person win.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

(1A) "How can a pastor be gay and lead a church? This is a contradiction."

Con appears to have, once again, ignored all of my contentions and reasoning to support exactly why a priest should be able to lead a mass regardless of sexual orientation. Again, this whole argument Con has contended in their first "rebuttal" is ignorant of what my previous argument addressed; homosexuals are no less capable of learning biblical laws and scriptures than hetereosexual/asexual people. However, for the purpose of this counter-argument, I would like to grab a snippit of one of Con's next arguments:

"This is written proof that the ceremonial practices went away with the death of Jesus."

Con is stating that along with the death of Jesus Christ, came the elimination of ceremonial practices and old fashion Christian values and principles. If the laws in the New Testament now twice referred to within the text of Leviticus is actually nullified by the death of Christ, then homosexuality would logically also be removed as a sin if the others have been. This is also ignoring that Christ apparently had "died for sins" so that those living in sin may be forgiven, and is also over-looking the logic that if everyone is born in sin and is a sinner in accordance to God as Christianity so proclaims, then it is counter-intuitive to the purpose to exclusively oppress homosexuals for their "act of sin".

"Pro has constantly tried to use the old ceremonial practices that went away with the death of Jesus against my claims. Pro has also ignored the scripture I have provided to support my claim."

I didn't ignore the scripture you brought forth, I just didn't feel the need to address it in my previous argument as it didn't truly support your claim. However, if you would like for me to address it, I will:

"- Leviticus 19:27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.
- Job 1:20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. (A form of worship)
- Numbers 6:18 And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. (A ceremonial practice like I have mentioned)

Those are just a few scriptures that show how the two are not looked at as the same."

Con is saying here that homosexuality is considered a sin of a higher tier/sins are not all equally paid attention to by God/punishments for them are inequal, yet in his first argument he specifically stated all sins were accounted for under equal charge:

"Homosexuality, murder, stealing and other sins alike are still sins in the eyes of God. They are all looked upon equally and hated equally by God."

Con is contradicting himself.

Now to address the first scripture of Leviticus cited; that is directly the scripture by which states that shaving is a sin within the biblical laws. Two address the other two, neither of those support the claim that "Old Testament laws are null."

"No human being is free of sin. Every human being is born with sin in their hearts and from birth will never be perfect as God is. However, homosexuality is not under any specific discrimination here."

Con is simply ignoring that homosexuals are a major target of the Christian faith [statistically speaking], as well as the fact that most organized religious groups - namely churches - are openly against homosexuals for their apparent "sins", which are, as stated by myself and confirmed by Con, equal in weight to other sins which are committed by all humans.

"God hates all sin equally."

Con is once more flip-flopping; having changed his mind twice within the first three rounds of this debate - going back and forth between sins being equal under God's jurisdiction and sins being unequal in charge.

"They hate when their kids do something wrong, but they still love them. They love the person and hate the action."

The problem with this is that the church is for some abitrary reason, condemning the act of homosexuality regardless of its ties to nature. Why would God want to turn away someone's loyalty because he can't overlook an outdated/expired sin? Something that, according to Con's repeated claims, are void since Christ's death.

"Also, if you claim that the other versions of the bible were written to give power to others (false) then why has there not been a version that accepts homosexuality? No matter what version of the bible you read, they all stand against homosexuality".

What you fail to realize is my statement was an assumption based on one of the many empowering principles of religion; take a look into history, for instance. Once a country had existed under the name of the 'Papal State', this country used Christianity to control the superpowers of that time and operated specifically on a theocratic government system. The country gained many allies and sealed royal marriages with various kingdoms in Europe, however the country met its collapse within a few generations. I would imagine that if a whole country is able to gain various alliances and royal marriages due to its religion and that said religion's influence, that people may interpret a religion into a sect specifically to spread their beliefs [aka literally what religion is about], however, this may also be used to benefit someone for either a positive/negative reason.

You're right, there isn't a version of the Bible that isn't against the act of homosexuality...unless Con means the laws of the Old Testament are still in place. What I would like Con to do is accept the BOP and bring forth a scripture in the New Testament saying that homosexuality is still a notable sin while the others are no longer counted against the committers.

"Ok, if you had any knowledge of the bible then you would know that God spoke through all people who contributed to the creation of His word. The words of the bible or not the words of the writers, but they are the words of God. As if they were straight from his mouth. So this does make Him the author. He did not literally come down from heaven and write the bible..."

No, that's not what that means. If I were sit someone down and have them type what I was saying, I can't claim that I was the author. Con also needs to prove that the people who wrote the Bible were doing so with words directly spoken by God.

"When the word "touch" is used, God is talking about having sex, not literally touching her."

Then explain this:

“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. ..."

Source: http://www.openbible.info...


In closing:

[1] Homosexuality cannot be a specifically hated sin if God hates all sins equally (confirmed by Con on two accounts).
[2] Homosexual priests and bishops have already openly admitted to their sexuality, still having been able to do their jobs with competence (evidence for such already provided with a specific example).
[3] Con has failed to provide any links to prove their citations to be true, and has made the decision to disclose partial arguments - as opposed to remaining impartial.
[4] Con has failed to address the fact that certain sects of Christianity are accepting of homosexuals even in their organized facilities [e.g methodists].

I thank Con for the debate. May the best debater win, indeed.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Thank you for your feedback, Herman.

I will be more weary next time when it comes down to grammar. :P
Posted by HermanGomez95 1 year ago
HermanGomez95
RFD:
Conduct is a tie. Both parties remained fairly civil throughout the debate. S&G goes to Con. Pro continually made spelling errors (i.e. misspelling Methodists, unequal, heterosexual, snippet, interpreted, tattoos, et. all) Sources goes to Pro. Pro used supporting documents to justify his claims, whereas Con only used evidence from scripture. Finally, arguments goes to Pro. Pro is correct is asserting that the majority of Con"s arguments are strawman arguments rooted in an anti-homosexual dogma. However, beyond these assertions, Pro clearly refuted a majority of Con"s arguments, including his arguments concerning Sin. The final factor in my decision was that Con did not address the fact that certain churches are accepting of homosexuals. This negligence gave Pro his strongest arguments. In conclusion, both parties did a fine job arguing their points. However, Con continued failed to adequately justify his reasoning behind his rebuttals. Beyond this, Con continually made strawman arguments that lead to a debate more focused around the nature of sin and homosexuality than the nature of homosexual pastors. For this, Pro should be elected the winner.
Posted by HelpIsOnTheWay777 1 year ago
HelpIsOnTheWay777
Whoever (Christian) ignore anything in the Bible is wrong, and should repent.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
People often point out that they can"t help it. They can"t help with the anti-gay bullyings because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans that being gay is wrong. We can learn to ignore the bollshit in the Bible about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore the bollshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bollshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.

The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn"t say Christians don"t own people. Paul talks about how Christians own people. We ignore what the Bible said about slavery because the Bible got slavery wrong. Sam Harris in Letter to a Christian Nation points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong: slavery.

What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100%. The Bible says that if your daughter"s not a virgin on her wedding night " that a woman isn"t a virgin on her wedding night, that she shall be dragged to her father"s doorstep and stoned to death. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they"re not virgins. People are dying because people can"t clear this one last hurdle. They can"t get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality.
Posted by HelpIsOnTheWay777 1 year ago
HelpIsOnTheWay777
Do you have any original thoughts of your own you can share or do you just do scripture?

When talking about God, or His Word, it's better to tell you what He said than to give you my, or man's opinion. You should respect that, coming from a Christian because a true Christian honors God, not himself.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Do you have any original thoughts of your own you can share or do you just do scripture?
Posted by Fletch290 1 year ago
Fletch290
I wont be commenting any further (unless both debaters would like me to continue) as this is not my debate. On that note I will answer Pros question.

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

First off The Bible isnt just "Christian Law" It is The Word of God, in The Bible, the whole law is designed to point towards Christ, it is there to show us we can't make it. We simply are not good enough to rely on our own righteousness through following the law.

Galations 3: 10-14

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because "the righteous will live by faith."[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, "The person who does these things will live by them."[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

The only way to God is through Christ plain and simple, Jesus did not undermine the law, on the contrary he fulfilled the law.
Here
Galatians 3:22-26
22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, t
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Flatcher
The only way to avoid eternal punishment for sins we never committed from this all-loving God is to accept his son"who is actually himself"as our savior. So " God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. And this sin god gave us is original sin, where god punishes the children for the crimes of there parents, this is also immoral
One of the key points of morality is to take responsible for ones own action, vicarious redemption is immoral and robs a person of individual responsibility. Original sin belief is based on the fallacious view that value is intrinsic. It doesn't claim that man is capable of performing evil, or even that man can be evil. It insists that man is evil independent of his thoughts, actions, or person. The claim is made without reason. It insists that evil can exist as a characteristic of an entity, without reference to a standard of value. Why is it evil? There is no reason. What is evil? There is no definition. It just is. The bible is full of moral contradictions, an morally honest person would admit this.
Posted by dnelms77 1 year ago
dnelms77
Ok, first, we do not have the right to bring a punishment down upon anyone. That is for God to decide. Secondly, where are you getting this kill gay people stuff from?? It does not say that in the bible anywhere for us to do. We can finish our debate, but tomorrow man. I just got off work.. I'm going to sleep. Lol
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
TheSatiricalAnarchist
The Bible says to kill homosexuals, yet Christians won't do that. So aren't they going against the Bible by not doing that? Anyways, back to the debate, yes?
No votes have been placed for this debate.