The Instigator
philosurfer
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
radz
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Homosexuality is Compatible with Christian Doctrine and God's Law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
radz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,273 times Debate No: 38967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

philosurfer

Con

Homosexuality is not compatible with Christian doctrine or God's Law.

I am not religious. I am not gay. I love all people. I am for gay rights. It is a matter of equality under the law. I think gay people are wonderful people.

I would like to understand the dynamics of a religious mind with that of a gay mind.

How can anyone be gay (homosexual) and endorse the a orthodox religious belief considering what the bible says about homosexuality?

By accepting this debate you agree to defend both being gay and Christian and agree to use the Bible and to support arguments.

First round is for acceptance and cases.

Thanks in advance!
radz

Pro

I am a Christian AND a real girl. Nothing more, nothing less!

Personal Experience ( My History)

--I felt sexually attracted to boys when I was grade 1.

--I don’t know why.

--As I grow up, I became aware that my gender is condemned in the Bible.

Hence, I tried to stop myself from that erroneous sort of attraction.

The Father who elected me was the one who also called me last February 2008 to salvation, hence I received Jesus the Messiah, the eternally begotten Son of the Father, as my Savior by grace through faith not by works and hence, I know that I possess eternal life ( John 1:1,14,18;3:16; 6:44, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5 , 1 John 5:13).

The moment I received salvation from hell is the moment the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit does his work in me (i.e. sanctification). – Philippians 1:6, 2:11; Hebrews 12:2

For five years of 1) prayers with literal tears and trembling before God to change me 2) and of effort to become a male ( i.e. to get attracted to girls), I just came to know about Transsexualism in the internet and I found out that it is reasonable as long as it is in line with the Scriptures.

Transsexualism is a phenomenon experienced by individuals who transition between either of the two major sexes, male and female, not due to social pressures or mental disorders, but due to an acute feeling of fundamental discontent with the sex to which they have been assigned (gender dysphoria).

Based on this, I am a woman ( that’s my gender) but my sex ( that’s my body, it’s a male one). I didn’t complain to God why am I like this because it is nature albeit a defect but just as any other medical condition, I do believe that I deserve treatment but this is if it’s God’s will ( James 4:15).

Current Status with my family

I came out last January 2013 to my parents through five pages of paper LOL. I wrote explanations using modern science, modern psychology and using that age-old infallible Scriptures plus with my personal experience since childhood. They accepted me easily but with two strict conditions:

1) No boyfriends ever

2) No feminine traits/behavior ever

My response: WHAT??? LOL

I think they really don’t accept me at all.

Current Status with the church

I am currently attending at Victory Christian Fellowship ( a Presbyterian church). This assembly never believe that transsexualism is a sin but those who know that I’m a transgender woman still receive me because they thought that I am just confuse and that God will change me (perhaps, because I know and firmly hold onto the beliefs they have which is impossible –according to them—to be held by someone not genuinely saved (i.e. assured of eternal salvation). I plan to tell to the bishops (i.e. pastors) next year LOL about myself. (I’m just scared and I think I will just –for now—obey Romans 14 in this).

Negative Effects of knowing my Transexuality

I desire suicide. It is totally depressing. I am expected to act and live like a male when in fact I am a woman in all my mind. As a human, I wish I am a heterosexual male or woman not a transsexual because if I’m not a transsexual I think my life would be so happy. Why? It’s because imagine that those heterosexual woman has their various problems: money, food etc. but transsexuals has a bigger problem than those heterosexuals and guess what? It’s their body.

Cause(s) of Transexualism

1)Natural Cause: Biological ( post-adamic state)

2)Environmental Cause: Nurture ( of biological dispositions)

Scientific explanation of the cause:

Premise 1: Biological cause: Hormonal/ neurological (natural cause)

Premise 2: Psychological cause: natural cause inevitably nurtured the mind to specific gender ( man/woman)

Conslusion: Transexualism

Neuroscience studies of transsexuals in recent years are increasingly suggesting that transsexuality is a biological phenomenon rather than a purely psychological one, as transsexuals' brain structures tend to have a strong resemblance to the brains of their identified gender, even before beginning sex reassignment therapy.

http://jcem.endojournals.org...

http://www.newscientist.com...

Biblical Explanation of the cause:

Premise 1: God created each and every one of us in the womb ( Psalm 139:13)

Premise 2: This sort of creation is in line with the effects of sin because it is within the realm of Post-Adamic fall ( Genesis 3, Romans 8:22)

Premise 3: People who get attracted to same sex are not the same in gender. ( Transsexualism)

Premise 4: There are only two sexes which is also two genders per se( man/woman) –Genesis 1:26-27)

Conclusion: Transsexualism is a medical condition because it is a birth defect per se.

Medical Treatment

Because transsexualism is a form of birth defect, it has a medical treatment. This treatment is not complete per se because anxiety will still be in anguish for not having the ability to conceive a child.

SRS- Sex Reassignment Surgery

HRS- Hormone Replacement Therapy

FFS- Facial Feminization Surgery

* If these medical treatments for transsexuality harms the body in any way then it means it is sinful (1 Corinthians 6:19)

Conclusion:

I am a Christian girl and a first-born Daughter of my parents. A creation of the Trinity and a new creation of the Son ( Genesis 1:26-27; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Note:

If I am insane. If this condition of mine is a psychological problem then I want a psychological treatment ASAP. Someone call a doctor! I never got attracted to girls. PLEASE. Send me to Mental Hospital please!


Debate Round No. 1
philosurfer

Con

Appropriate Debate Amendments & Concessions:

First, clearly, you are redirecting and conceding that you are not "gay" but rather "transsexual". So I'd like to also concede and recognize that it would be unethical for me to push the topic of debate (forcing you to defend the position of being gay and Christian) considering the new information you have divulged.

Second, I'd rather like to defend you (the transsexual), and transsexualism in general, from your own bad religious ideas and beliefs in the following ways:
(1) Transsexualism has nothing to do with religion,
(2) nor is it due/can be explained by Original Sin types of concepts (as you suggested by your Biblical Explanation premises, specifically premise 2 and 4),
(3) nor can it be explained by other religious narratives, nor should it (Christianity is not science; I would endorse your natural explanations).
(4) I believe it is unhealthy to your personal psychological state to still be religious and wrestle with being a transsexual (not because you are a transsexual, but because your are religious!).

I would essentially like to suggest that your Christian-religious-beliefs are wrong by simply pointing out, as a gay or transsexual person in general, equally, they do not serve your cause nor are they conducive to the Transsexual agenda.

The bigotry found within the Christian religion is not worthy of you! Let's agree to ratify the form of the debate-challenge to you defending being transsexual and Christian (which, ethically, my position will now honestly be defending you from Christianity).

Third, I'd like to offer my evaluation and assessment, in an attempt to offer and give you an outside perspective (an opinion) regarding your religious position as a transsexual person. As you have accepted this debate-challenge I can ethically assume this would be copacetic (If you disagree or decline, we can change the topic or I will refrain altogether, or you may forfeit the debate).

If we have time, I would also like to offer another possibility; a combination of possibilities (which will make more sense as an explanation for transsexualism, homosexuality, various other biological anomalies, and then show how this inductively discredits, destroys and erodes the religious-Christian position and its authenticity).

Christian-Transsexual Moral Quagmire!

It would almost seem like a 'lose-lose' situation you are in sexually. I can't even begin to imagine. So I sympathize (not to pity you), genuinely, if only because I recognize my own personal sexuality has not and has never been that complicated or difficult. So I commend you for being so brave an out-spoken! You are truly a courageous person!

You are in quite a pickle! On one hand, if you engaged in what others would consider appropriate healthy sexual behavior based on your physical genitalia, it would then be considered "gay" to you given your brain-psychology and neurology (as you are female and have a "female brain" and, thus, would be having sex with other female brains). Conversely, if you have sex with the appropriate heterosexual partner neurologically, it would then be considered physically "gay" considering physical genitalia (you are appropriately a female-in-brain having sex with a male-in-brain, yet there would be physically present two sets of male genitalia involved).

Of course there is always the possibility, as you mentioned, that you are simply just plain ole CRAZY! Which, I don't think you are. Transsexualism seems to be a real phenomena. I believe it's similar to homosexuality in this way. It is not a choice, but a real state of being.

Christian Evil:

I suggest that there is only a risk of a 'lose-lose' situation religiously. Either way, God and Christians will judge and condemn you precisely because of scripture and doctrine:

1) Christians do not want to accept that (if they believe God created the world) God created a world which is not perfect. The Bible suggests that God created a perfect world [Genesis 1, God calls each work of creation good].
The Apostle John emphasizes this in the beginning of his Gospel account: "All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" [John 1:3] (John is squarely in the New Testament).
"The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil" [Proverbs 16:4].

2) Saying the world is not perfect anymore now because of Sin is a kind of evil in and of itself because it then excludes and dismisses your suffering as unimportant and places responsibility for your unfortunate, random circumstances on yourself and the rest of humanity!

This is wrong for any religion to do. Not only is it profoundly unfair, its completely circular reasoning. It makes no sense to say there are homosexuals and transsexuals and conjoined twins because people are sinful. Those kinds of claims do not answer anything. And why would human sin affect animals' sexual behavior? Animals clearly suffer. Why would God allow animals to also suffer from human sin? Original Sin and Evil ideas are not tenable and, thus, are illogical.

Original Sin concepts also do not explain Natural Evil either (cases when humans cannot be blamed for occurrences) like natural disasters and a natural order for predation within nature. Original Sin concepts are so ridiculous it was once thought by St. Augustine that the actual sin itself was passed down generationally on male semen! These kinds of ideas are not worthy of you and they are patronizing!

3) We observe homosexuality and transsexualism in nature [Dawkins, Richard (2004). "Chimpanzees".The Ancestor's Tale. Houghton Mifflin.]. Over 1,500 species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior.
If God created the universe then He must also take responsibility for the creation of transsexuals and homosexuals equally alike, which He condemns: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Judge 19:16-24, Genesis 19:1-11, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Judge 7, Mark 10:6-9, etc.
radz

Pro

Thank You very much for your kindness, understanding and rationality. I really appreciated it.

But I do not concur with your argument against Christianity because I already presented transsexuality's coherence with the Christian Scriptures.

On the Original Sin and it's relation to Transexuality

All humans came from dual progenitors: Adam and Eve. Man and Woman. Two sexes with two genders. They're created "very good" at the moment of their creation ( Genesis 1:37).

Adam disobeyed God's Law and hence, sinned. His sin is called the "original sin", This sort of sin has its consequence per God's curse( Genesis 3, Romans 8:22).

The curse of God/consequence of the original sin is passed on to their offspring (i.e. all humans). --Romans 3:10-11,5

Biological effects of original sin

--Disease ( of all sorts) e.g SARS, HIV, H1N! to name a few.
--Defect (of all sorts) e.g. birth defects like Anencephaly, down syndrome, cleft life etc.
--Death (of all sorts) e.g. ageing ( i.e. cell death), human death (i.e. separation of spirit to body~ James 2:26)

God never creates imperfection. He just allows it to exist ( James 1:17).

On the Scriptural verses against homosexual intercourse

All Old Testament Scriptures that forbids homosexual intercourse are not bounding to the New Testament church.

The New Testament acknowledges marriage as the summit of sexual unions. Outisde marrige, no sexual relations is allowed.

--Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 both forbids homosexual intercourse within the Religious setting of Temple worship of false deities. Hence, homosexual relations are allowed within Christian setting.

This is only logical conclusion per se based on limited source of scripture and its context in both history and grammar.

Do Christians in the first century understand Transsexualism?
What is their view about homosexual relationship/sex/lifestyle?

The only answer to these questions is that the Scriptures only talked about homosexual intercourse in a negative sense.

There is no condemnation at all for homosexual relationship/lifestyle/intercourse within a Christian setting but IF Jesus' words in Matthew 19:12 about " eunuchs who were born that way" means the same thing as in his disciple's contemporary Philo in the 1st century and Christians in the 2nd and 4th centuries then it means that the case is resolved because these eunuchs are explicitly attracted to same sex. Hence, LGBT's in the early church!

Source:

Philo, On Joseph, XII. 58-60.

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, III. I. --NOTE that this only proves that homosexual attraction is present in the 2nd century but having the greater context both from the 1st and 4th century, we found out that homosexual attraction is not a sin and hence, saints ( i.e. christians) are accepted in the early church as the following historical evidence evinced:


Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oration 37. XVI -XVII.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Council of Nicea, Canon 1, AD 325.



-- Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3 doesn't talk about homosexual intercourse at all. The Greek word "astorgos" denotes "without family love ( From a- without storge- family love, natural affection to kindred).

"Against the fifth commandment: Disobedient to parents, andwithout natural affection - astorgous, that is parents unkind and cruel to their children. Thus, when duty fails on one side, it commonly fails on the other. Disobedient children are justly punished with unnatural parents; and, on the contrary, unnatural parents with disobedient children."
- Matthew Henry Commentary Online


Debate Round No. 2
philosurfer

Con

Original Sin and the Problem of Evil:

Why do the piously-religious give credit to God for all the good and wonderful occurrences in their life and the world, yet blame ALL the bad things on Humanity and Sin?!

In other words, butterflies, rainbows, flowers, happiness, love, peace, etc., are "blessings" from God --God is actively involved in human affairs, answering prayers, healing the sick, etc.; BUT pain, suffering, disease, famines, darkness and death are the result of sin.

These are obvious inconsistencies! You cannot have it both ways!

Do you REALLY believe crops fail because of sin rather than a drought or soil depletion? Do you REALLY believe HIV is caused because of sin rather than bush-meat being consumed from poached primates (who are so similar to us that by eating their flesh the HIV virus could be contracted)?!

So maybe we are not all as informed or educated, but to suggest metaphysical or supernatural explanations for physical phenomena is a terrible starting point! It illustrates an obvious religious confirmation bias!

These religious-supersticious ideas were believed before we understood why crops fail or before we developed a germ theory of disease..

Sophisticated theologians and scholars recognize that it cannot be this way.

If you find yourself giving credit to God for all of the pleasant things in your life, yet blame yourself and the history of Humanity (sin) for all the diseases, pain, suffering and unfortunate occurrences.. I would suggest to you that you in fact do have an unbalanced and skewed perspective because of your religion. And if this is true, I submit this as an example of how religious ideas are not healthy.

Here is the problem of Evil within formal philosophy (in a nutshell):

Original Sin (Evil) is theologically used to support and prop-up the idea of Free Will -- The idea is that God must allow evil to be pervasive in the world in order that we may be free.

But it is a strident contradiction when we then say that God still answers prayers, heals physical diseases, interferes in human affairs, etc., He (God) then is participating in our dimension.. but then to say He is removed wholly from the evil in the world is absurd! A small example of God still being actively involved and causing human suffering in the Bible is when God allowed the first born in Eygpt to be killed so His chosen people could make their escape under the cover of darkness. What is moral about this God to allow this?!

Again, also, Original Sin does not account for Natural Evils (natural weather disasters, earthquakes & volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids hitting the earth, solar radiation, etc., etc,), cases in which human choice can not explain death, pain and suffering.

Nobody "chooses" a baby born with leukemia.

Nobody "sinned" and caused the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake. The earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates. The tectonic plates shifted because of geo heat convection because the earth is still a geologically active terrestrial planet in our solar system.

Nobody intentionally "chooses" to step on a poisonous snake or "sinned" to cause the snake to bite.

So for religious-mined folks to suggest that their sins effectively caused their own suffering and pain is unspeakably arrogant and cruel! And the religious supporters of these kinds of superstitious ideas, whether ignorant or not, should be ashamed of themselves!

Worse, you degrade and dishonor yourself by suggesting your own circumstances and state of being (being transsexual) was caused by yours' and the rest of humanity's past and future sins! It is so outlandish and wrong! Believing these ideas, cloaked under the garb of religiosity and faith is absolutely evil! It's like you are indirectly blaming yourself for your own suffering and radom circumstances that you didnt ask for. These ideas are no longer appropriate for modern times. They are sad because they were illconceived in the minds of ancient people.

Romans 1:18-22, 24-29
English Standard Version (ESV)
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness

18"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22"Claiming to be wise, they became fools

24"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25"because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29"They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.

How would an ancient transsexual be perceived?!?! My guess is as "gay" only because it is a very recent occurrence that we understand brain neurology.

The ancient Greek translation of the term or word "homosexual" in the Bible is " arsenokoite" which can mean both a male prostitute or homosexual. But let's keep in mind there would be no way to distinguish between a homosexual and a male transsexual 2500 years ago.

What was God's law back then concerning these matters?

Let's visit Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." It was capital punishment. A gay person would be smart to suppress who they are in order to live according to God's law..

Why would God allow this back then but not now? Visa versa..? My question is purely rhetorical and I do not want an answer.
radz

Pro

On the Original sin

The doctrine of the original sin does not in any way contradict reality. Every good things comes from God but every bad things is from the inevitable consequence of the original sin.

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." James 1:17 ( NIV)

Of course, the Devil and his demons also causes bad things ( Job 1:1-22,Mark 5:1–20).

Still, God never creates evil but he only allows it to exist. Obviously, for his own glory ( Ephesians 1:11, Romans 8:28).

Do you REALLY believe crops fail because of sin rather than a drought or soil depletion? Do you REALLY believe HIV is caused because of sin rather than bush-meat being consumed from poached primates (who are so similar to us that by eating their flesh the HIV virus could be contracted)?!

YES. I believe and this is in line with scripture AND science. Crops fail and HIV became existent because biological evolution exists.

Again, also, Original Sin does not account for Natural Evils (natural weather disasters, earthquakes & volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids hitting the earth, solar radiation, etc., etc,), cases in which human choice can not explain death, pain and suffering.

Nobody "sinned" and caused the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake. The earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates. The tectonic plates shifted because of geo heat convection because the earth is still a geologically active terrestrial planet in our solar system.


Again, natural evil exists because evolution is reality.This natural process is one of the consequence of the original sin. Evolution is a post-fall reality.

Nobody "chooses" a baby born with leukemia.

I totally agree. Do you believe in evolution? It's because it's the answer to all these things. The Scriptures confirms it.

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Romans 8:22 (NIV)

God is still intervenes on earth because there are still creatures capable of fellowship with him. These are the saints. Saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. They're the chosen ones bought by the blood of God's own Son ( 1 Peter 2:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 20:28). Don't worry, Jesus is coming very soon! He'll create all things anew. Even so, Marana tha!

Debate Round No. 3
philosurfer

Con

Misinformation & Scientific Corrections:

Droughts and soil depletion, as reasons for why crops fail, has nothing to do with biological evolution!

Biological evolution cannot explain earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic erruptions, hurricanes, etc. Biological evolution cannot address why asteroids hit the earth.

Biological evolution cannot adjudicate the moral quandary regarding the senario of a baby born with leukemia.. It is what the American Protestant theologian, John Hick, calls "Dis-teleological Suffering". In other words, suffering for no-good-reason. Is there a reason why we suffer for no good reason? "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

The ideas that you have suggested to answer these kinds of questions are not proper scientific ideas, nor are they proper theological ideas either.

And because of this you didn't exactly answer anything regarding Natural Evil.

Worse, you even agreed with everything that I said as far as me asking if you really believed sin is responsible for these natural phenomena.. You even went as far as to suggest the Devil and demons! Whoa!

You really believe sin is responsible for all of the bad things in the world and only good things come from God! I can almost rest my case based on this. And then you wrongly use a scientific concept (biological evolution) to fill in the theological gaps. This is madness! It's not okay. I don't think it's crazy to be transsexual, I think it's crazy to believe these religious ideas and not understand science and use it wrongly. Worse, again, you are then indirectly blaming yourself and "human sin" for your circumstances! It's not healthy.

You asked God to change you but He didn't. You would rather believe that God has mysterious reasons, blame humanity and "sin" rather then consider a more likely option: God might not exist.

My Overview:

1) Cultural Contrasts

My guess is that you are culturally and ethnically Filipino (from the Philippines).
The Philippines is one of the most religious countries on the planet, of which over 90% of the populace in Christian, and 80% of all Christians in the Philippines are Catholic. Less than .01% of the population considers the self non-religious.

As where, in the United States, folks here are very religious as well, however, nearing 20% of the populace no longer identifies with a religious sect or consider themselves non-religious.

Further, it is considered an odd rarity to meet a orthodox-traditional Christian person in the United States who is also either homosexual or transsexual. Most are liberal and reject religion.

I'm not saying they do not exist, cuz they do, I have several close friends and family members who are homosexual and struggle with trying to square this with an innate impulse to also be religious.

In the United States you will now find whole other groups and churches (communities) comprised of homo and transsexual people who also want to satisfy a need to still be religious. For example, the Gay Christian Network (GCN) is a prime example of this.

When asked why these folks started their own Christian community some of the answers given were because they couldn't see rejecting their faith even though they weren't accepted by the more orthodox groups of their faith. This suggests that questioning authenticity of their faith, asking if their religion was true or real, was more difficult than wrestling with their sexuality or gender issues.

This fascinates me because it means that a great many homosexual and transsexual people's impulse to be religious supersedes and trumps their psychological needs and problems, even when the social construct of the religious group still rejects who they are as a person. So the rejected will form their own Christian groups so they can still be gay or deal with being a transsexual but keep their religious beliefs intact.

2) The Brain

It turns out that a percentage of the human population might have a predisposition to be religious; no matter what -- are "hard-wired" to be religious. Given the right environmental conditions and social conditioning, people with this predisposition will always be religious. There are evolutionary reasons for this impulse but many neuro-anatomist and neuro-scientist hypothesize that humans are out growing the need for this.

I think many of the gay and transsexual people here in the united states who have a need to be religious might also have the neuro-anatomy and predisposition to be religious even though their sexuality might not be idealistically compatible with their religious beliefs.

For you it would be hard to know because everyone in the Philippines is religious, so there would be no way to know if you were being religious for purely cultural reasons or because you are now hard-wired to be religious.
radz

Pro

On the Cause of Evil

There has been no misapprehension in my part.

Droughts and soil depletion, as reasons for why crops fail, has nothing to do with biological evolution!

Biological evolution cannot explain earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic erruptions, hurricanes, etc. Biological evolution cannot address why asteroids hit the earth.

Biological evolution cannot adjudicate the moral quandary regarding the senario of a baby born with leukemia.. It is what the American Protestant theologian, John Hick, calls "Dis-teleological Suffering". In other words, suffering for no-good-reason. Is there a reason why we suffer for no good reason? "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

I totally agree. That is whyI also said in Round #3 evolution without the adjective biological:

Again, also, Original Sin does not account for Natural Evils (natural weather disasters, earthquakes & volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids hitting the earth, solar radiation, etc., etc,), cases in which human choice can not explain death, pain and suffering.

Nobody "sinned" and caused the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake. The earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates. The tectonic plates shifted because of geo heat convection because the earth is still a geologically active terrestrial planet in our solar system.


Again, natural evil exists because evolution is reality.This natural process is one of the consequence of the original sin. Evolution is a post-fall reality.

The reality of Evolution

living things evolve but it is also true that non-living things are part of this process. Everything changes. It's a fact that change is a permannent thing in this world.The processes which shape the topographic features of the earth include earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. These are natural events. Even in the absence of humans and life, the natural processes would continue to change the shape of the earth.

On the compatibility of the Christian faith with Transsexuality

I already provided logical, coherent, and historically unbiased argument for transsexuality as not a sin done by a person affected by it but is one of the consequences of the original sin in the biological realm. Unless my sound arguments are refuted, the stance that I upheld still stands. Hence, I am not sinning being a transwoman.

I recommend to my opponent the book of Romans chapter 14. If I'm right in my stance then this chapter is the clear answer to his seemingly enigmatic question. Transexuality is Compatible with Christian Doctrine and God's Law.

Conclusion:

I really thank my opponent for rationally accepting me as a real woman but I don't concur with his stance that a transgender cannot be a Christian at the same time. Thank You!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by LoveisLove3 2 years ago
LoveisLove3
I am Bisexual and I have a tight bound with the Lord he loves all his children. He wants all his children to live as one and not to fight and to say I can't get married just because I fell in love with a girl is stupid. So what I don't fit your idea of normal if this screwed up society that we live in. Love is love a rose is a rose a heart is a heart there is no difference between me and the others in this world
Posted by Ver 3 years ago
Ver
I am bisexual and I am a Christian. I believe if God didn't want us to be so, we wouldn't be who we are.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
I dont mean to be a massive internet douche but can someone please vote on this! i hate it when no one votes and it turns out tied, its like playing a whole soccer match to see it being a 0-0
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by praditsa 3 years ago
praditsa
Temple prostitution arguments are very weak. James White spends 5 hours reviewing Matthew Vines' presentation on reconciling homosexual practice with the Bible in the audio file Gay Christianity Refuted on aomin dot org. There are intertestamental period sources that condemn the practice as well as early Christian writings. Pro and Con need to both clarifly between practicing the attraction (ie. having sex and lusting) vs having homosexual attraction. All of us have a tendency to lie. But it is sin when we actually tell one or entertain the thoughts of lying, not when we have the urge to lie. The same principle holds for this discussion. I would like to see this mentioned in the debate, plus more background from Pro on the temple prostitution argument and Philo and Clement's wrting
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Interpretations of homosexuality being mentioned in the Bible didn't arise until 1946.
Posted by Quatermass 3 years ago
Quatermass
Sadly homosexuality isn't compatible with Christian doctrine. The Bible clearly indicates God to be against same-sex relations and clearly indicates a very homophobic attitude toward such people (that they should be put to death). Homosexuality is as compatible with God's doctrine as God's doctrine is compatible with reality.
Posted by philosurfer 3 years ago
philosurfer
Tough case to make!

Just for clarification: Pro is defending being a Christian and gay and that being gay is compatible with God's Law.
I am (Con) against the motion that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible according to orthodox and traditional Christian doctrine and standards.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Oh... thought you were Pro. Glad you're Con. Good luck. God bless.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
philosurferradzTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the pro's side, but I feel that she went off topic by introducing trans issues. This debate is about homosexuality and whether or not it is compatible with the Judeo-Christian Bible. I will give you examples: Pro said "Transsexualism is a phenomenon experienced by individuals who transition between either of the two major sexes, male and female, not due to social pressures or mental disorders, but due to an acute feeling of fundamental discontent with the sex to which they have been assigned (gender dysphoria)." I feel that this is off topic because trans issues and homosexuality/bisexuality are all different issues.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
philosurferradzTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Very well done debate. Con was good on conduct until later rounds, making assumptions about Pro, and even concluded with a racial/cultural slur. Pro used his sources wisely and properly and was orderly. Arguments would be tied except Con talked about Christian culture rather than Christian law. Though I Agree with the thesis I did not agree with any points that Con brought up.
Vote Placed by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
philosurferradzTied
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 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: Though not very religious, I agree with Con. Unfortunately, Con's arguments were not objective at all. He assumes, a priori, that the Christan religion is false ("I would essentially like to suggest that your Christian-religious-beliefs are wrong by simply pointing out, as a gay or transsexual person in general, equally, they do not serve your cause nor are they conducive to the Transsexual agenda.") and then uses that unverified assumption as a fallacious spring board to counter Pro's arguments. Con began the second round well by making a list of points, but he failed to verify them and instead went on a long anti-religious diatribe. Con's person attacks in contrast to Pro's politeness deny Con points for conduct. Pro's arguments were not better. Pro used way too much anecdote and opinion. The logic elsewhere was questionable, especially his conflation of sex and gender. I look at the Biblical references, but Pro's assumption is not validated n the book.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 3 years ago
Greematthew
philosurferradzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro to me really tried to get Con to change his beliefs. There was false poking and jabbing at Christianity that went on in rambles. That seems to as if it were his goal the entire debate. It was more focusing on Con's beliefs rather than the topic at hand. I am a Christian and whole-heartedley agree with Con. Very good job.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
philosurferradzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I agree with con, he presented his case poorly. Pro demonstrated and outlined why homosexuality is against christian doctrines. I am countering the person below me for spelling and grammar, because Pro did nothing to breach it. Conduct was equal, and you cant just label something as descriptive writing in s&g. That is made for spelling errors. So countering that vote in that regard. As far as arguments as sources, Pro won again. His outline on his topic was better, and he also had a multitude of sources to back them. All around was a pretty proper thrashing by pro. Con could have easily won this but did a poor job presenting his case.
Vote Placed by MasterOfTheUniverse 3 years ago
MasterOfTheUniverse
philosurferradzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used other sources besides the Bible but still used the Bible appropriately. More bible verse sources were used by Pro but all of Pro's sources were religious in nature as where Con used a variety. It's not how many but how good and diverse your sources are. Con's argument content wasn't as full as I would have liked but it was still more rational and convincing. And I thought Pro's format and presentation was cleaner but Con used more descriptive vocabulary and writing. Con was the instigator from the start so I believe conduct was about the same, leaning Pro, but not worth scoring. The topic was modified and so the debate was a little off key. Still interesting tho. Props to Pro for kicking butt anyways.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
philosurferradzTied
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 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: I agree with the Con that Homosexuality is not compatible with the Christian Doctrine, especially if the Homosexual is protestant. I also agree that Original Sin and the Character of God are contradictions and leave Christianity open to attack due to the inconsistencies. However, for the purposes of the debate, I have to say Pro had Better conduct and Arguments. They were better structured and she obviously knows the bible well. However, neither party really stayed on topic and Homosexuality in Christianity was never truthfully debated. Because of this I only Conduct goes to the pro as all arguments were not related to the topic. Original Sin and the Problem of Evil were not the topic of this debate. I encourage Con to read the bible before taking on this debate again. Pro, I am glad that you had (lol) the balls to do what you did. That's something very difficult to do in our society, especially while trying to remain a Christian.