Homosexuality is a sin and if one continues in the sin, then it will sadly lead that person to hell.
Debate Rounds (3)
Gal. 5:19: " Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness"
1 Cor. 6:9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
Jude 7: "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is a sin that transgresses the eternal law of God. God's justice will be rendered out on such perversity. But God also is kind, loving, merciful, and is willing to show long-suffering, if homosexuals will realize what they have done and are willing to repent of their sin and turn to a life of true repentance. That what happened to some of those who lived in Corinth who became Christians. Their sins were washed away through immersion because they were willing to surrender to God their lives from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Isn't that wonderful "good news"? You bet it is! I pray that every homosexual will begin to realize the life they are living in that they will turn to God. It is not just homosexuals, but also adulterers, thieves, etc. What a wonderful world this would be if people would change their lives to living as God would want them to live.
My opponent has much work ahead of him in this debate. To win it, I submit that the burden of proof is clearly on him to show that homosexuality is a sin, and that 'if continued in' (whatever that means) that person will be sent to hell.
Now sin is a word that only has meaning in a religious context, and my opponent makes it perfectly clear that he is arguing from a Christian context. I am not however prepared to concede unchallenged that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If my opponent wishes to argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and therefore that homosexuality is a sin, then he must first demonstrate that God exists and that the Bible is an accurate reflection of his message to humanity. Only then will the argument he articulated above begin to have any weight.
Furthermore, the burden of proof is also on my opponent to prove that hell exists and that all homosexuals will be sent there if they 'continue in the sin.' Furthermore, he must also clearly define what he actually means by this phrase.
My stance on this matter is very simple. A significant minority of the human population feel romantic and/or sexual attraction towards those of the same sex. The reasons for this attraction are unknown.  No single 'gay gene' has been found, but current evidence suggests that this state of affairs is largely determined by genetics and random environmental factors.  Whatever the exact truth, there is no evidence to suggest that in the general population one's sexuality is a simple choice, in the same way that one can choose which clothes to wear or what music to listen to.
Some members of the population also claim that homosexual behaviour is immoral. They claim, as my opponent does, that it is a sin, and against the law of god. However, not only can they not demonstrate with any reasonable degree of certainty that this god even exists - their best (and by and large only) evidence for this is an ancient collection of confused and contradictory writings by scientifically illiterate men, which cannot be taken seriously as a truthful message by anyone today - but they can't even come up with a rational explanation as to why that god would outlaw homosexuality. The simple fact is that if god exists, if he is good and if he says that homosexuality is a sin - all things claimed by my opponent in his first statement - then there will be a good, rational reason as to why he would do so. So I ask my opponent: what is that reason?
I will now turn the floor back over to my opponent, and I look forward to his response.
 = http://www.apa.org...
 = http://esciencenews.com...
"If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked: Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).
Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist's argument, then, is this:
Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
Either matter or mind is eternal.
Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
That eternal mind is God. (http://www.apologeticspress.org...
The teleological argument states:
1. If the Universe shows evidence of design,it must have had a designer.
2. The Universe does show evidence of design.
3. Thus, the Universe must have had a designer. (http://apologeticspress.org...)
The universe, animals, human beings, etc. all show design, therefore pointing to a Designer - God.
The moral argument states:
"Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God exists.
Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed manner in his debates with atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace Matson (p. 285).
If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong).
Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why do people generally think that some actions are "right" and some actions are "wrong," regardless of people's subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is "evil" or "wicked" (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are "a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses" ("Metaphysical," 2011)—and "rely on moral values." The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist."
I can guarantee you that my opponent believes that some activities are intrinsically and objectively moral or immoral, good or evil. If this does prove the case, then my opponent will be surrendering and testifying indirectly that the moral argument is stronger and is coherent and correspondent with Ultimate Reality - God. He states about the Bible: " an ancient collection of confused and contradictory writings by scientifically illiterate men, which cannot be taken seriously as a truthful message by anyone today." (1) My opponent has the burden of proof placed on him to show where the Bible contradicts itself and is not compatible with science. (2) He states that the Bible cannot be taken as a "truthful message". Implicitly, my opponent believes then that there is such a concept as a lie. He must believe that lying is immoral. Else why would he debate me on this proposition unless he believed that he was doing the moral (right) thing - tell the truth. Obviously, he believes that I am teaching a false proposition - a lie. He has further given stronger allegiance to the moral argument that God exists.
"Here is a strong argument for the Bible being the word of God:
"If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . . property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production), then the Bible is the word of God.
It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . . property Z.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the word of God.
By "property A, property B,...," etc., Warren meant "affirmative propositions regarding some fact regarding the Bible" ("God's Word" 18). It is clear that the argument is valid in form. It is a hypothetical syllogism in which the antecedent of the major premise (1) is affirmed. The only way the argument could be shown to be unsound (i.e. the truth of the conclusion does not follow from the premises) would be to show at least one of the premises is false."
You could put in the Property A = the fulfillment of hundreds of OT prophecies, Property B = eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Christ, Property C = Eyewitnesses of the miracles of Jesus, Property D = scientific foreknowledge, etc. I would be glad to go into this a little deeper in the next round.
My opponent states: "they can't even come up with a rational explanation as to why that god would outlaw homosexuality. The simple fact is that if god exists, if he is good and if he says that homosexuality is a sin - all things claimed by my opponent in his first statement - then there will be a good, rational reason as to why he would do so. So I ask my opponent: what is that reason?" It is obvious that my opponent believes in logic and reasoning. Where does logic and reasoning derive from? The naturalistic worldview cannot account for logic and reasoning because how could the blind, random chance forces of matter (which somehow created itself - "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist") change or convert over into mind?" It can't! Only the Christian worldview can account for logic and reasoning in that it derives from an Ultimate Mind - God.
My opponent asked me about, "continuing in sin"? I summarize by stating that there are former homosexuals who have given up their sin by changing their lives to God in living a righteous life. They are still tempted though and have strong tendencies or desires to commit the sin, yet overcome those temptations through submission to God who are striving to walk in the light, thus have the promise of eternal life.
Let me start however by saying that while my opponent is perfectly correct in his assumption that I am an atheist, he is not correct in his assumption that I have actually conceded that the Bible itself teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is debatable as to whether or not the Bible teaches this - hence why many Christians disagree about it  - and I could, if I chose, make an argument attacking my opponent's resolution on those lines. I choose not to do so however, because I think it far simpler to show that the Bible cannot be considered to be the inspired work of a divine being - and once that is shown, who cares what it says!
So let's start with the issue of whether or not a god actually exists. The cosmological argument that my opponent presents is little more than an argument from ignorance. It is not a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing; at the quantum level, particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, with no discernible cause or reason at all.  My opponent quotes the Christian theologian Robert Sproul to support his case, and I have to ask him what scientific knowledge the said theologian has that makes his opinions on the origin of the universe remotely authoritative. How does he know that nothing could exist without a self-existent being, and what evidence does he have to support this assertion? I submit that this whole argument is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion that seeks to insert god as an explanation for things that we simply do not understand yet - something that human beings have been doing all throughout history.
Moving on, the teleological argument is countered very easily by the scientific Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, which provides a convincing and credible explanation for all the apparent design that we see in the universe today - namely (putting it very simply) that it arises out of genetic variation within a population , with the result that those creatures whose genes give them an advantage over others (slightly better hearing/eyesight etc) are more likely to reproduce and pass on those genes to the next generation.  And so, gradually and slowly over time, due to this process of Natural Selection, living creatures become more adapted to life in their respective environments . The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and although scientists do disagree over relatively minor details, the basic facts of evolution are no longer in scientific dispute.  Most crucially, nowhere is god needed as an explanation to make this process work.
Moving on to the moral argument, it is now accepted as self-evident truth by most people today that slavery is a terrible evil, and one that is rightly outlawed. If the moral argument is valid therefore, it surely follows that it is objectively true that slavery is evil, and (if the Bible is the work of the god who exists by the moral argument) that the Bible should therefore condemn it. However, far from condemning it, the Bible explicitly endorses it. Leviticus 25:44-46, which grants the Israelites the right to purchase male and female slaves from the foreigners in their midst is just one example amongst many. For this reason, many religious Americans as late as the 19th century considered slavery to be morally approved by god. 
And so, I regard the moral argument as an example of what I informally call 'an argument from wishful thinking.' Yes, it would be nice in many ways if objective truth did exist. It would make settling issues a lot easier if we could simply appeal to some unquestionable 'objective truth.' Sadly however, there is no evidence that such a thing even exists, and religious organisations themselves give us absolutely no reason to believe that it does.
Incidentally, given that slavery is clearly endorsed by the Bible, yet we now consider it to be wrong, one could just as easily argue that we have no good reason to consider homosexuality wrong, despite the fact that you can find verses in the Bible condemning it. However, I have already explained why I see no need to explicitly construct an argument along these lines. The fundamental point that I do wish to make is that given that we see no evidence of an 'objective morality' within religious institutions, there is no reason to believe that they have any kind of access to any source of 'objective morality.'
My opponent goes on to list various properties which he claims demonstrate that the Bible is of divine origin. Property D - scientific foreknowledge - has already been effectively demolished and destroyed by the Theory of Evolution, whose implications flatly contradict the creation story in Genesis. To give one further example, science makes a complete mockery of the story of Noah's ark, since (to give one of many arguments) the ark specified in the Bible would not have been large enough to carry all the animals and food required to repopulate the earth. 
I can take B and C - the so called eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and his miracles - together. We have no idea who wrote the four gospels and why. We therefore have no idea where the writers got their information or whether or not they were even eyewitnesses to the events they describe.  Furthermore, the different gospels can't even agree on fundamental details concerning important events such as Jesus' death - did he die confused and despairing, wondering why God had forsaken him, as told by Mark 15:33-34, or did he die knowing that he was fulfilling god's plan and that he was going to paradise, as told by Luke 23:43 - 46. Surely, if the Bible were the inspired work of god, he would have made sure that its message on this vitally important matter was clear and consistent.
Finally, I would ask my opponent to provide an example of an Old Testament prophecy which he thinks has been fulfilled.
And so, my opponent still has much work to do. He has, I submit, so far completely failed to show that god exists or that the Bible is his message to mankind. He tellingly provides no rational reason whatsoever as to why that god, if he exists, would wish to outlaw homosexuality, relying instead on another argument from ignorance, using god to explain logic in the same way that people used to use god to explain rain, wind and thunder. We as yet have no reason to believe therefore that god even exists, let alone that homosexuality is against his law, and I look forward to my opponent's final response.
 = http://en.wikipedia.org...
 = http://www.scientificamerican.com...
 = http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
 = http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
 = http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
 = http://books.nap.edu...
 = http://www.religioustolerance.org...
 = http://www.talkorigins.org...
 = http://www.npr.org...
fishing_007 forfeited this round.
That said, I have no interest in winning debates by default. I would therefore request that when voting, people base their votes on the two completed rounds and not simply award me the victory just because my opponent forfeited his final round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RandomName 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: I never truely thought the Bible told the "truth" and I have always been in favor of treating homosexuals equally. Goes to Telanian.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.