The Instigator
SavedByChrist94
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
justin.graves
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

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 5 votes the winner is...
justin.graves
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,591 times Debate No: 31950
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

SavedByChrist94

Pro

I will allow the opponent to give arguments against this, and then I will offer my rebuttal.
justin.graves

Con

The Bible, both OT and NT, are very clear that Homosexuality is a sin. Here are just a few verses in multiple translations:

I Timothy 1: 9-10

NIV: "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

ESV: "understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine,"

NKJV: " 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

How about the great story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

NIV:

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

ESV:

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords,please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

12 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city,bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”

NKJV:

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them,he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.”

And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”

3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.

6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him,7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to stay here,and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

12 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city—take them out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”

There are two instances. One from the OT, and one from the NT where homosexuality (Sodomy) is labeled as evil and a sin.

Debate Round No. 1
SavedByChrist94

Pro

The first thing my opponent fails to do is use Original Hebrew and Greek and instead goes for English Translations, None of Which are 100% accurate and can cause problems, we need to use The Original Words written.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 uses the word arsenokoitai, which is a combination of the words, arsenos and koiten, which are found in The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13,

Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not condemn Homosexuality, but condemn Anal sex(Lyings of woman), therefore None of those 4 passages(1 Timothy 1:9-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) condemn Homosexuality, but condemn Anal sex.

Argument refuted.

Sodom and Gomorrah,

Evident by, Genesis 19:9 - 9 "Get out of our way," they replied. "This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We"ll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

Where it says "we'll treat you worse than them", they weren't looking for sexual pleasure with The Angels, they wanted to rape and violate them, if these guys were looking for merely sexual pleasure with any man, they would've taken Lot, so it was either because they wanted to violate or because they wanted to have sex with Angels, which isn't Homosexuality, if they wanted Homosexual sex they would have raped Lot. so those 2 points alone refute your argument.

Add that to The Fact that The Bible repeatedly mention Sodom and Gomorrah and 1, never say it's because of Homosexuality and 2, say it's because of Inhospitality http://www.gaychristian101.com....

My opponent has failed to provide any passage on Homosexuality, the first verse he posted(1 Timothy 1:9-10) was against Anal Sex, and he brought us Sodom and Gomorrah(whom most Biblical Scholars do not take as due to Homosexuality, http://www.gaychristian101.com... ) which has nothing to do with Homosexuality.

In order for my opponent to provide a proper rebuttal, he must refute what I have written and actually provide verses/passages on Homosexuality, if there are any to begin with.

The Holy Spirit(YHWH) has helped me in this debate against faulty arguments.
justin.graves

Con

Admittedly, the original Hebrew and Greek are great sources for the original meaning in any Biblical passage. However, I wonder why every Bible translator for the past 2,000 years, save the modern day pro-gay translators (i.e. Queen James Version), have translated everything into the words "Homosexual", "Sexually Perverse", and "Sodomites". Interestingly enough, some words in the Hebrew actually mean more than one thing. I looked up that word online, it can be translated both ways. So God was actually condemning two things at the same time!

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God killed every person, save Lot and his family, because they were inhospitable? What? Plus, God condemned Sodom long before the incident with the angels. Also, so what if it was simply for the purposes of violation, it was still a homosexual act. Lot also offered his daughters instead of his sons so that they wouldn't "do this evil thing." Don't tell me God destroyed a whole city because of the sin of a few "inhospitable" people. The translators and Hebrew are clear, homosexuality is a sin. However, if you want to believe something God didn't say, you will find every way to take or add to the Bible.
Debate Round No. 2
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"Admittedly, the original Hebrew and Greek are great sources for the original meaning in any Biblical passage. However, I wonder why every Bible translator for the past 2,000 years, save the modern day pro-gay translators (i.e. Queen James Version), have translated everything into the words "Homosexual", "Sexually Perverse", and "Sodomites". Interestingly enough, some words in the Hebrew actually mean more than one thing. I looked up that word online, it can be translated both ways. So God was actually condemning two things at the same time!"

Again who cares what translators translate, we have The Original Language all we need is proper word study and grammar and where did YHWH condemn what 2 things at the same time?

"As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God killed every person, save Lot and his family, because they were inhospitable? What? Plus, God condemned Sodom long before the incident with the angels."

There you go, you admit it wasn't because of Homosexuality as you say they were already condemned.

" Also, so what if it was simply for the purposes of violation"

Because that was the purpose... The text never says it was due to Homosexuality nor does the text imply that they had Homosexual desires, they just wanted to violate, they could have had sex with Lot, arguing anything else is due to plain bigotry as I have already proven Sodom and Gomorrah was not condemned because of Homosexuality.

"The translators and Hebrew are clear, homosexuality is a sin. "

Prove it, all you have done is prove you are blind in this matter.

"However, if you want to believe something God didn't say, you will find every way to take or add to the Bible."

1, Prove this, and 2, This is what you have done, which makes you hypocritical.

Overall my opponent instead of refuting and providing any proof for Homosexuality, makes assertions based on emotion, which is not up for debate.

If this person does not provide proof of Homosexuality being a sin, then goes on to take it as a sin, He adds to YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit)'s Word, anything added to YHWH's word is secular and therefore this person holds to a Secular "atheistic" doctrine against YHWH's Word.
justin.graves

Con

What? "who cares what the translators translate,"? I don't know who you are, or what your experience is in translation, but my grandfather helped to translate the ESV. I know a thing or two about the original Greek. As for God saying two things at the same time... take a look at this:

Mark 6:9-13 (KJV)

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


Here it is in Luke 11:2-4 (KJV)

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Here it is the Matthew passage in the original Greek:

ΠΑΤΕΡ ΗΜΩΝ Ο ΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΙΣ
ΑΓΙΑΣΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΣΟΥ
ΕΛΘΕΤΩ Η ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΣΟΥ
ΓΕΝΗΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΣΟΥ,
ΩΣ ΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ ΓΗΣ
ΤΟΝ ΑΡΤΟΝ ΗΜΩΝ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΟΥΣΙΟΝ
ΔΟΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΣΗΜΕΡΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ΑΦΕΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΤΑ ΟΦΕΙΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΗΜΩΝ,
ΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΗΜΕΙΣ ΑΦΙΕΜΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΦΕΙΛΕΤΑΙΣ ΗΜΩΝ
ΚΑΙ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΝΕΓΚΗΣ ΗΜΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΝ,
ΑΛΛΑ ΡΥΣΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.
ΑΜΗΝ.

Here is Luke passage original Greek:

ΠΑΤΕΡ ΗΜΩΝ Ο ΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΙΣ
ΑΓΙΑΣΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΣΟΥ
ΕΛΘΕΤΩ Η ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΣΟΥ
ΓΕΝΗΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΣΟΥ,
ΩΣ ΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ ΓΗΣ
ΤΟΝ ΑΡΤΟΝ ΗΜΩΝ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΟΥΣΙΟΝ
ΔΟΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΣΗΜΕΡΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ΑΦΕΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΤΑ ΟΦΕΙΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΗΜΩΝ,
ΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΗΜΕΙΣ ΑΦΙΕΜΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΦΕΙΛΕΤΑΙΣ ΗΜΩΝ
ΚΑΙ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΝΕΓΚΗΣ ΗΜΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΝ

Almost exactly the same, except part of the end is left off, yet the English is different several times! Why? Because like English, some words written on paper can mean several different things. "Saw" could mean a tool for cutting, that you saw something with your eyes, or maybe you are referencing a popular horror franchise. There are three meanings to that written word. However, the difference is that the words in Greek that have fairly similar meanings. In the Lord's Prayer, "day by day" and "daily" are both correct translations. "sin" and "tresspasses" are each viable in there context as well. In the Greek word "arsenokoitai," the translation could be homosexuality, gay prostitution, and anal sex. God was saying that all of these are wrong at once! Although this is hard for us to understand, that is how the Bible is written. God is condemning homosexuality along with anal sex. Actually, the direct translation is homosexual anal sex.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God couldn't find ten good people in that city, a city known for its homosexuality. Everyone in the city was gay or lesbian besides Lot and his family. Not everyone was inhospitable. Again, God sent the angels to warn Lot of the coming destruction. That judgement was passed down before the angel incident! God still condemns homosexuality. Regardless of what those who build up a false God to suit themselves say.

Sources:
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com...

http://thetruthaboutgreekandhebrew.com... homosexuality is still a sin

http://biblegateway.com...


http://www.lords-prayer-words.com...


Debate Round No. 3
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"What? "who cares what the translators translate,"? I don't know who you are, or what your experience is in translation, but my grandfather helped to translate the ESV. I know a thing or two about the original Greek. As for God saying two things at the same time... take a look at this:"

Translators, such as ESV translate The Entire Bible and most likely do not do proper study, the esv translates for example 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as

the word they translated into "Homosexuality" is arsenokoitai, arsenokoitai as I proved in the previous round does not mean Homosexuality, you failed to even mention, acknowledge and refute that argument, so that would count as a loss.

"Almost exactly the same, except part of the end is left off, yet the English is different several times! Why? Because like English, some words written on paper can mean several different things. "Saw" could mean a tool for cutting, that you saw something with your eyes, or maybe you are referencing a popular horror franchise. There are three meanings to that written word. However, the difference is that the words in Greek that have fairly similar meanings. In the Lord's Prayer, "day by day" and "daily" are both correct translations. "sin" and "tresspasses" are each viable in there context as well. In the Greek word "arsenokoitai," the translation could be homosexuality, gay prostitution, and anal sex. God was saying that all of these are wrong at once! "

Nope, arsenokoitai has no reference or similarity to Homosexuality, as is an act, not a sexual orientation. the act of arensokoitai is anal sex, there is no other definition to it, if there is then surely like I proved it only means Lyings of Woman(anal Sex), you must prove throughly that Lyings of Woman is not the , if YHWH had a problem with Homosexuality He would have condemned lesbian and All sexual acts between men, but He only condemned Anal Sex, which means YHWH presupposes that that man is gay and has no problem with it, or He is just condemning an act of Temple Prostitution.

In order to say that YHWH was condemning "all at once!", you must prove,

1, Arensokoitai which is from Hebrews, Lyings of Woman, which is Anal sex can mean Homosexuality(which is Impossible as Lyings of Woman is just that, Anal sex.)

2, The definition of Homosexuality(Orientation) was condemned in Leviticus, as Arensokoitai is from the Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

3, That Arensokoitai(Anal sex) condemns Lesbianism

All which will be impossible for you to do, as Arensokoitai as proven is Lyings of Woman and Lyings of Woman in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is in use for Anal sex meaning.

"God is condemning homosexuality along with anal sex. Actually, the direct translation is homosexual anal sex."

In order to have this claim at least be a Possibility you must,

1, Refute everything I wrote point by point in The Previous Round, which you did not.

2, Prove it means Homosexual Anal Sex, all it says is do not have sex with a man as you would a woman, doesn't say "do not have Homosexual anal sex", so this applies to straight people like you and me.

"As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God couldn't find ten good people in that city, a city known for its homosexuality."

1, you must prove the city was known for Homosexuality
2, you must prove Homosexuality is condemned in The Bible, which you still have not done, but instead have put emotional assertions such as "! God still condemns homosexuality. Regardless of what those who build up a false God to suit themselves say."

I can assert that God(YHWH) condemns all sexual activity and that all sex is a sin, that doesn't make it true, I must prove it first. likewise you are just making assertions, until you refute everything I wrote in the previous round, your argument is invalid and my proof stands, The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality or Homosexuality Behavior, The Bible only condemns Anal sex.

The Opponent must throughly refute all my proof in the previous round without opinion, assertion or emotion, only Proof, Evidence, and Facts.
justin.graves

Con

You are putting yourself above the translators that have done years and years of education and study. That specific Aramaic word, Arensokoitai, means both homosexuality and anal sex. Both are correct translations, but you cannot say that only your version is right. Both are correct. That is the Hebrew language. It can be translated two ways!
Debate Round No. 4
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"You are putting yourself above the translators that have done years and years of education and study. "

Who cares? I proved it. Thanks to The Holy Spirit(YHWH), and they didn't, in order for your claim to be correct you have to refute everything I proved, this is a debate, not an assertion contest.

"That specific Aramaic word, Arensokoitai, means both homosexuality and anal sex."

No it doesn't, only means Anal Sex, people took male for male anal sex condemnation as a condemnation for Homosexuality in General, Arensokoitai is from The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13,

which says,

Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 will be proven Not to be Homosexuality, But Anal Sex,

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 does not condemn Homosexuality
Lets cut to the knife,

Leviticus 18:22 in Hebrew ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא

Transliteration - V"et-zachar lo tishkav mishk"vei ishah to"evah hu.

Leviticus 20:13 Hebrew - ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם

Transliteration - V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam

Breakdown,

lets use 20:13 as it has the extra stuff,

V'ish - And male
asher - Who
yishkav - lie down
et - with
zachar - male
mishk'vei (mishk'av)- Beds/lyings
ishah - woman/wife
to'evah - abomination/abhorrent/ritually unclean
asu - Do
shneihem - both of them
mot - dying
yumatu - they will die
d'meihem - their blood (or blood of them)
bam - on them (or them)

And that equates to, "and male who lie down with male bed/lyings woman/wife abomination do both of them dying they will die their blood on them

and then, "and a male who lies down with a male the beds of a woman (or wife), both of them do an abomination; Dying they will die, their blood is upon them'."

now watch this,

Yes Numbers 31:18 - But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.(A verse often misunderstood by perverts, which Moses commands to kill all those who worship the false god and particpate in evil cultic rituals and to save for themselves(or bring into Israel) the ones who didn't do wicked things, called Virgins)(remember this just says keep them alive and keep them in tribe, in other words bring them to Israel, why? because they weren't evil and didn't participate in evil child sacrifices, violence, and all other lunatic "atheistic" false religious cultic pagan things, if you see the word virgin and think sex of it as meaning to have sex with, then I suggest seeking help)

which says, in Hebrew, וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם

Which is transliterated,

w'khol ha"af BaN"shiym "sher lo-y"d'ű mish'Kav z"kh"r hach"yű l"khem

what a wha wha what?(Eric Matthews style, fa fa fa Feenay!, Feeeeeny!, Feeny!)

Yes mish'Kav z"kh"r means Lyings of man, while in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we have, mishk"vei ishah which is Lyings of woman.

Why is this significant? Lets go talmud here for a sec,

sanhedrin 54A as a reference to anal sex,

and then this proves it all,

[quote] The task was especially difficult because there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The only difficult phrase is mishkeve isha (usually parsed as "the lyings of a woman"), because the phrase appears nowhere else in the Bible. A similar phrase, the lying of a male (mishkav zachar), appears in Numbers 31:18 and is understood to mean what women experience in intercourse, i.e. penile penetration. Consequently, mishkeve isha is what men experience in intercourse, that is, penile engulfment. If so, then the verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. And where is a man penetrable? Here the rabbis make use of the fact that the word lyings is in the plural form. The lyings of a woman are plural because she may be penetrated vaginally or anally. A man, missing the vagina, is singly penetrable anally. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning.

By far the most intriguing element of the puzzle is the fact that lesbian relations are totally unaddressed in the Torah. The only explanation of this lacuna is that the Torah is utterly uninterested in "homosexuality" per se. The sameness of the sex (homo=same) that so dominates contemporary thought in regard to homosexuality is missing here. Instead, there is something about anal sex between men that is at the center of the biblical concern. Of course the obvious question is just this: Why does the Torah consider anal sex between men to be such a problem?{/QUOTE]

1, So the verse condemns Penetration, aka Anal sex. if it condemned Homosexuality it would say SEXUAL RELATIONS as did the previous verses against Incest and Bestiality, Leviticus 18:22/20:13 and the verse against sex during menstration though are Specific with detail, for example Menstration verse doesn't say "don't have sex with women", it says don't have sex during menstration, likewise this verse says don't have anal sex with another man.

YHWH would've either said sexual relations, have mentioned lesbianism(as in the condemnation of bestiality YHWH told women Also not to do it), and

Anal sex is is detrimental to Anyone(not just Homosexuals, look up women who did porn and have to sadly wear a diaper), it's no good so either this reason is why it's condemned or it was condemned for cultural reasons and is no longer sin(For example Leviticus isn't all Universal Moral laws, it does contain Dietry and Sacrifice laws for Israel Only(Don't eat pork, etc which were for Israelites only), contrary to False Doctrine, we ARE under Law, we aren't under Israel laws like circumision, look up New Perspective on Paul, this is what was argued, Old Testament God even tells us He'd rather have MERCY than Sacrifice in Isaiah 1 and Hosea 6:6)

All Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn is Anal Sex, AT MOST, if not then Temple Prostitution.

That's why KJV(Don't like this translation by the way) renders it,

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

As with womankind/as he lieth with a woman as proven means Anal sex, which is cool as this probably means YHWH either assumes one is ALREADY gay or doesn't care, He just says, no anal sex.

So whenever some false atheist pastor uses this verse against Homosexuality you correct them by giving them this study and telling them to read carefully, anal sex only is condemned, assuming YHWH hates Homosexuality because He forbids anal sex is like assuming YHWH hates Hetrosexuality because He forbids menstration in Leviticus 18:19, because YHWH obvious wants us to have sex(Genesis 1:28)

As for the other verses supposedly against "Homosexuality" I suggest you use, GayChristian.com and watch 1GodonlyOne from youtube.

Plain and simple, anyone who intentionally condemns Homosexuality and claims to be a Christian is really a Pharisee "atheist" hypocrite.

In order for my opponent to properly refute they must refute all that I wrote on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, No Opinions, No assertions, no emotion, just pure rebuttal.

Thank You, and YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit) Bless.
justin.graves

Con

Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." I would go with the New Testament for the law first, then move to the OT.

I notice that in your contentions, you talk about Leviticus the most, but stay out of I Timothy for the most part. First of all, you have been using the Septuagint Translation, so you have not been using the original language in that context, but a Greek translation of it. Second, I will try this one more time, anal sex in those days was closely related (and still is) to Homosexuality. So in their original tongue, the two were clumped together into one word. It would be redundant for them to say "homosexual anal sex." It would be like us saying "the dry desert" or "the wet water." In their culture, the two are so intertwined that they only had one word to refer to both acts.

When you constantly refer back to Leviticus, you are missing the fact that the original Hebrew word for homosexual, "Hetruiopis", strictly means homosexual. You are not using the original text, but a translation.

So, as you can see, God condemns Homosexuality and anal sex at the same time using a Greek word. It is best translated as "homosexual" though, because God was condemning homosexuality first and tacking anal sex on their as wrong too.

Sources:
http://www.biblegateway.com...

http://www.christianbiblereference.org...

http://www.homosexualityandthebible.org...

http://www.homosexualityandthebible.org...

Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
Opponent was tricky and condescendingly tricky, sorry for my impatience with him, but he refuses to listen to obvious proof, how can someone like that repent? Yes I called him satan, because he was acting like him, deceptive, a sheep with wolves clothing pharisee(Matthew 7:15 - "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." - Jesus Christ/YHWH)
Posted by NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN 4 years ago
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN
SavedByChrist94, why are you calling him Satan. He is obviously not.
You are simply upset with him. He has treated you kindly while you called him names. It reminds me of a verse. I Samuel 24:17, Saul is speaking to David, "And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil."
Enough said.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
"pro had better conduct since some of cons points where slanderous but pro had better sources since con had almost none. pro had better arguments since con did not post an actual point on round 4"

Half-way there with the reason, the guy admits I brought a convincing argument, I win, my point however is Proven
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
... at the point when people start calling other people Satan because they are angry they lost a debate, I must consider blocking them or reporting them, or both. Please settle down so I don't have to do either. The debate is over. I have lost to an Atheist before, I was fine with it. He did better than me, so what?
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
How can I lose Gracefully to satan? Sorry not me, especially YHWH doesn't want that. that's like saying I should lose gracefully to an "atheist", you must be out your mind to think I'm going to lose gracefully to your arguments from satan.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
Thank you, Mr. Trystanharpold... I am trying to teach the concept of losing gracefully to my opponent, but he seems opposed to it.
Posted by Trystanharpold 4 years ago
Trystanharpold
he doesnt have to refute anything now. the debate is over. People will vote on how they believe you did. if you cant take a defeat maybe you should not debate at all.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
Justin, unless you can show where in any round you refuted what I copied and pasted you lost the debate, you didn't refute that anywhere in this debate. if order for my opponent to get a proper vote he must have refuted that point by point, thus most voting for him is blind and most didn't read the debate which is Confirmation Bias
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
Of course the obvious question is just this: Why does the Torah consider anal sex between men to be such a problem?{/QUOTE]

1, So the verse condemns Penetration, aka Anal sex. if it condemned Homosexuality it would say SEXUAL RELATIONS as did the previous verses against Incest and Bestiality, Leviticus 18:22/20:13 and the verse against sex during menstration though are Specific with detail, for example Menstration verse doesn't say "don't have sex with women", it says don't have sex during menstration, likewise this verse says don't have anal sex with another man.

YHWH would've either said sexual relations, have mentioned lesbianism(as in the condemnation of bestiality YHWH told women Also not to do it), and

Anal sex is is detrimental to Anyone(not just Homosexuals, look up women who did porn and have to sadly wear a diaper), it's no good so either this reason is why it's condemned or it was condemned for cultural reasons and is no longer sin(For example Leviticus isn't all Universal Moral laws, it does contain Dietry and Sacrifice laws for Israel Only(Don't eat pork, etc which were for Israelites only), contrary to False Doctrine, we ARE under Law, we aren't under Israel laws like circumision, look up New Perspective on Paul, this is what was argued, Old Testament God even tells us He'd rather have MERCY than Sacrifice in Isaiah 1 and Hosea 6:6)

All Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn is Anal Sex, AT MOST, if not then Temple Prostitution.

That's why KJV(Don't like this translation by the way) renders it,

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

As with womankind/as he lieth with a woman as proven means Anal sex, which is cool as this probably means YHWH either assumes one is ALREADY gay or doesn't care, He just says,
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
Yes mish'Kav z"kh"r means Lyings of man, while in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we have, mishk"vei ishah which is Lyings of woman.

Why is this significant? Lets go talmud here for a sec,

sanhedrin 54A as a reference to anal sex,

and then this proves it all,

[quote] The task was especially difficult because there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The only difficult phrase is mishkeve isha (usually parsed as "the lyings of a woman"), because the phrase appears nowhere else in the Bible. A similar phrase, the lying of a male (mishkav zachar), appears in Numbers 31:18 and is understood to mean what women experience in intercourse, i.e. penile penetration. Consequently, mishkeve isha is what men experience in intercourse, that is, penile engulfment. If so, then the verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. And where is a man penetrable? Here the rabbis make use of the fact that the word lyings is in the plural form. The lyings of a woman are plural because she may be penetrated vaginally or anally. A man, missing the vagina, is singly penetrable anally. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning.

By far the most intriguing element of the puzzle is the fact that lesbian relations are totally unaddressed in the Torah. The only explanation of this lacuna is that the Torah is utterly uninterested in "homosexuality" per se. The sameness of the sex (homo=same) that so dominates contemporary thought in regard to homosexuality is missing here. Instead, there is something about anal sex between men that is at the center of the biblical conce
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN 4 years ago
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN
SavedByChrist94justin.gravesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more civil and refuted Pro's ramblings.
Vote Placed by Trystanharpold 4 years ago
Trystanharpold
SavedByChrist94justin.gravesTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had better conduct since some of cons points where slanderous but pro had better sources since con had almost none. pro had better arguments since con did not post an actual point on round 4
Vote Placed by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
SavedByChrist94justin.gravesTied
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: Tied for conduct since much of this was simply back and forth. Con had better spelling ad at least used better sources, and I believe his argument was never refuted.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
SavedByChrist94justin.gravesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: From I read Pro tried to enforce his own meanings to specific words. Con showed that those meanings are incorrect and Pro never does rebuttal these claims. Pro even suggest that virgins doesn't mean to not ever had sex relations. Con proved his point with less words.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
SavedByChrist94justin.gravesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a interesting debate but I am giving Con the points for better conduct because he seemed a bit more reasonable. Con, I think he made more convincing arguments which is why I'm giving him the points for it.