The Instigator
Tristboi22
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Jabuticaba
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Homosexuality is not a sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Jabuticaba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,072 times Debate No: 49071
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (60)
Votes (3)

 

Tristboi22

Pro

If God chooses our sexual orientation for us and reveals it to us by our gender, why did he create AIS hermaphrodites or "intersex people" as they are now known as? These individuals have vaginas, female breasts, and are hormonally more women than the average female, BUT they do NOT have a uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. They DO in fact have testicles and their DNA is MALE. http://www.isna.org... If this person chose to marry, which sex should they marry? How does one reconcile this miracle of nature with the position that God only created male/female? Can your argument be backed up with scripture? Clearly science contradicts the Conservative Christian's position that homosexuality is "wrong" by the AIS condition that absolutely NO ONE can argue with the fact that they are born this way.
Furthermore, I would like to challenge anyone to show me where the Bible condemns homosexuality.
Jabuticaba

Con

As you have already explained, this debate must be based on the Christian beliefs. Because of such, this debate will only consider homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.

There are so many versus in the bible explaining how homosexuality is wrong, and therefore a sin according to the bible.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22 ESV

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)"-Leviticus 20:13

" 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." Leviticus 20:13:

As I have just proven, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, therefore a sin to Christianity.
Debate Round No. 1
Tristboi22

Pro

As for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we must understand that the Bible was not written in English, but was written in Hebrew and we must have the correct Hebrew translation.

Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing.

(The women"s portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men"s half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman"s quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael"s tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21)."

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

Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

As you can see, as we go from Hebrew through the translations and bible rewrites, to the present time (I've only stated a few examples but its a lot more complicated then this) it's original meaning like many statements in Leviticus sound none relevant in modern society, if 18:22 stayed with its original translation nobody would pay any attention to it. Its been translated like this purely to boost bible sales. Newer bible sales have become more and more homophobic to boost sales. Homosexual global population is around 10% lesbians 6%. By hurting the minority the bible publication have boosted sales for the overhaul majority 90% straight male. he plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The "bedding" or "bed" in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out.
Furthermore, those two verses in particular were in the Old Testament. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that the entire law is summed up into one commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14. Either that verse is true or it is not. Eating pork, wearing clothing that contains more than one type of fabric are ALL forbidden. Do you do any of these things? Eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), a woman wearing a man's cloak (Deut 22:5) and the Hebrews breaking bread with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32) are ALL abominations too. We are not under the law anymore, but under grace, so unless you follow ALL the laws of the Old Testament, then please don't quote it to me.
The following Bible verses will prove that we are not under the Old Testament laws, rules, and regulations:
Hebrews 7:18-19, "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God."
Galatians 3:23-25, "Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that WAS to come would be revealed. 24 So the law WAS our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Romans 6:14, " For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Galatians 2:21, " I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!
Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
Need more? I got more! Heb. 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
This is why I believe that even if your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were correct, they are still irrelevant because Christ has come and we are under a NEW COVENANT.
Jabuticaba

Con

It does not matter whether I do or don't follow all the rules in the old testament, all that matters is that according to such, homosexuality is a sin. Even if there is a new covenant, in the Bible, at one point it was a sin. So, in the end, according to the bible, homosexuality is a sin. I have already proven this.

If this isn't enough, I can quote from the new testament as well.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

"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."

See, even in the new testament it says that homosexuality is a sin, and that those who do such will not inherit the kingdom of God. I have already proven many times that according to the bible, homosexuality is a sin. My opponenent is unable to counter such. According to the bible it is a sin, so I have already proven my point, and won this debate.


Debate Round No. 2
Tristboi22

Pro

Since we are talking about homosexuality being a sin in the PRESENT TENSE, you must prove that it is a sin NOW. This debate is about whether or not homosexuality IS a sin, not if it WAS a sin. The verses that you quoted in Leviticus do not prove your point. I have shown that it had to do with lying with a man on the bedding of a woman.
So, looking at the meaning of the original text, we get a little closer with "Likewise male shall not lie bed wife is hated it". Fixing the grammar just a touch can give us a better translation of "Likewise, (you) shall not lie down with a man in (your) wife's bed. It is hated."
This actually makes sense in the context of the entire chapter, which also prohibits incest of various forms, and other sections of Leviticus that prohibit adultery. Many Christians don't realize that some men today will pretend that homosexual sex isn't adultery because it's not "real sex"; I wouldn't be surprised if this was going on in the days of Moses as well. And of course, it makes sense that the Bible would prohibit same-sex adultery. What doesn't make sense is why the Bible would prohibit two males from having sex (under any circumstances) and not prohibit two females.

I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. there was not Greek word for "homosexual" at the time that verse was written. The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. So you have NOT "proven: anything at this point. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946.
The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak."
Before you claim victory, you should at least wait for my response. I am asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is sin, according to the Bible. I fail to see how you have done that so far. Furthermore, you said that you have proven "many times with the Bible that it is a sin". I don't agree that 3 verses is a good example of "many".
Jabuticaba

Con

My opponent does not even understand his own debate. Because of his ignorance, I will explain such once more.

What does my opponent want me to prove?

" I would like to challenge anyone to show me where the Bible condemns homosexuality."

So he asks anyone to prove the bible condemns homosexuality. It does not matter when in the bible, or if it isn't true any more, it is still wrong in the bible. Since I have already proven in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, in both old and new testament, I have already won this debate. My opponent comes up with excuses such as "but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew". However these are completely irrelevant.

He asked me to show him where the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I did! He cannot create excuses like translation and different versions. No matter how you see it, homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, regardless where. Because of such, I have won this debate.

Now I will make various stronger arguments because my stubborn opponent continues to make irrelevant excuses.

Rebuttals:

"Since we are talking about homosexuality being a sin in the PRESENT TENSE, you must prove that it is a sin NOW.

If you read my argument, you would realise I have explained how it is a sin in a verse, NOW.

"This debate is about whether or not homosexuality IS a sin, not if it WAS a sin. "

If you read your opening rules, you would realise you said if it was a sin to the bible, not if it was a sin in the new testament only. And even if it was, I have already proven it is in both covenants.

"The verses that you quoted in Leviticus do not prove your point."

Since they are in the bible, they have.

"I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. there was not Greek word for "homosexual" at the time that verse was written. "

I extracted these verses from (ESV). I have already proven that homosexuality is a sin according to the bible NOW.

"The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position."

Yes we can. It was in the bible. Maybe it was lost in translation, but it is still in the bible. It is a sin to the bible, regardless if it was changed in translation or not. And if they didn't use homosexuals, they may have also used "sexually immoral" which I am pretty sure was dated back then. Since both mean the same, it is highly possible that it
was in the bible.

"So you have NOT "proven: anything at this point."

You asked if it was a sin according to the bible. I have proven such.

By the way, you use translation as an excuse for it not being true, however you asked me if it was like this NOW. Since the translations have led to this, homosexuality is against the bible NOW.

I have already proven my point, whereas my opponent created various irrelevant excuses trying to dodge the fact that the bible is against such NOW. I have already proven my point, and it cannot be contended.
Debate Round No. 3
Tristboi22

Pro

I do understand my own debate. I challenged you to show where the Bible condemns (present tense) homosexuality. When one interprets the Bible, they interpret Bible passages with other Bible passages. You cannot "cherry pick" verses. If we were just dealing with the Old Testament, you might have a point. However, we are dealing with the ENTIRE Bible.

"So he asks anyone to prove the bible condemns homosexuality. It does not matter when in the bible, or if it isn't true any more, it is still wrong in the bible."

I have already proven that we are not under the law anymore, but under grace. YOU still have not given a rebuttal for Galatians 5:14, "For the ENTIRE LAW is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." I challenge you to show me where "homosexuality" is anywhere in that verse. I'm assuming you are a Christian since you mentioned "Christianity" in your first post. We are dealing with the Christian New Testament, so can you please explain to me how homosexuality is still a sin in light of Galatians 5:14 and Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
Heb. 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." ? You simply cannot quote a verse and ignore the rest of the New Testament and try to make it say something it does not. If you continue to do this, then you also need to explain why ALL the abominations in the Old Testament are no longer sins. I, for one, can with the verses I just quoted. We are not under the law, but under grace.

"My opponent comes up with excuses such as "but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew". However these are completely irrelevant."

Original translation is not relevant?? What is then? The Bible was not written in English or much less, American-English and it DOES matter what the original manuscripts say. Do you have a rebuttal to the Hebrew translations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 besides, "My English Bible says something else, therefore, I'm right"? Do you have a rebuttal to the Greek translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 or not? Simply calling something irrelevant and not backing up your claim, frankly, proves absolutely nothing. What gives you the authority to decide if the English translations are just as reliable as the Greek and Hebrew? If you believe all Bibles are created equal, then pick up a "New World Translation" of the Bible. This particular one was put forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses. This version robs Christ of his Deity! I'm willing to bet that you might take issue with this version.

Now I will give my rebuttals to con's rebuttals:

"If you read my argument, you would realise I have explained how it is a sin in a verse, NOW."

All you have done is quote an English-written Bible that puts the word "homosexual" in the text that was not originally there. I challenge you to PROVE that "homosexuality" is the correct word translated there. If you can, you will immediately be famous because to this day, no one has.

"If you read your opening rules, you would realise you said if it was a sin to the bible, not if it was a sin in the new testament only. And even if it was, I have already proven it is in both covenants."

I know what I said. I said "THE BIBLE", which means, "ALL OF IT." You interpret scripture with other scripture. If you really understood the Bible, you would know that the New Covenant found in the New Testament is the ONLY covenant we live by now. The verses that I quoted in the New Testament say that we are not under the laws of Moses or the Old Covenant anymore. If I am wrong, what verses do you have to refute what I just said? I have given many to prove my case in my second post.

You said that since the verses are in Leviticus, then they do prove your point since they are in the Bible. It DOES prove that laying in the bedding with a male in your WIFE'S bed is a sin as I have already proven with the Hebrew. That means the man was married to a woman already. No one is arguing that adultery is not a sin. I challenge you to show how two men outside this situation are sinning. Furthermore, prove that we are STILL under these laws.

I went on to examine what the word "arsenkoites" meant in the Greek and why it should not be translated as "homosexual".

"Yes we can. It was in the bible. Maybe it was lost in translation, but it is still in the bible. It is a sin to the bible, regardless if it was changed in translation or not. And if they didn't use homosexuals, they may have also used "sexually immoral" which I am pretty sure was dated back then. Since both mean the same, it is highly possible that it
was in the bible."

Maybe it was lost in translation? We are dealing with evidence, not speculation. What evidence do you have that "homosexual" is definitely the word that should be translated here? We are not dealing with your personal opinions here either, so saying, "I'm pretty sure" about anything holds no water in this debate. You must prove that homosexuality was sexually immoral. Do you have evidence or not?

I do not use translation as an excuse for anything. I use translations as an argument in order to be accurate. Translations do not "lead" to anything except mistranslations of the original manuscripts.

To summarize, my opponent has given two verses in the Old Testament which he believes condemns homosexuality, but in light of the original Hebrew, we find that it is NOT the case. Furthermore, even if my opponent's interpretation of the verses in Leviticus were correct, my opponent would still need to explain why they believe we are still under the Old Covenant and not under the New Covenant and grace for which I have already proven. My opponent would still need to explain why Galatians 5:14 says, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." and Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

It's bad enough that my opponent is tying to say that the English version of the Bible is just as reliable as the Greek and Hebrew, but my opponent is arguing for an American-English version! The point of this debate is to find out what the Bible says about homosexuality, not someone's opinion about what the author's were saying. We must be accurate in order to know for sure what was being said.

This is why my opponent has yet to prove that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible
Jabuticaba

Con

My opponent continues to make many excuses irrelevant to the concept. There is the Greek bible, and the English bible, and all the bibles. We are looking at the English bible, for it is the only one we understand. So, if it says homosexuality is a sin in the English bible, I have already proven IT IS A SIN. Translation is irrelevant, because if it was relevant, the verses you have posted are also incorrect, because they weren't translated properly.

Homosexual was a word in Hebrew at the time, you have no proof supporting it wasn't, or that homosexual came into the bible in 1964. The word for homosexual in Hebrew is "הומוסקסואל"

Now let's go along with your excuses, and pretend that homosexual isn't in Hebrew. There are still verses about homosexuality, without using the word homosexual.

1 Timothy 1:8-10
"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 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, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)"

In this verse, it also says "Sexually immoral". To be homosexual, play with thy self etc. [1] So even without the word homosexual, homosexuality still appears in the bible, as I have already proven. My opponent can not go against this, because it is FACT.

And about these verses about law.

"Galatians 5:14 says, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." and Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Yes, it says to love each other, and that it's the end of the law. But this does not mean something is not a sin, it means he will forgive someone for sinning. It says in the old testament not to kill. Now that the law is gone, does it mean murder is no longer a sin? Of course not! Same goes for homosexuality. The fact that it even appears in the new covenant proves my points.

1) homosexuality is condemned in the bible
2) homosexuality is in the new covenant, and old covenant.

So in both testaments, homosexuality is condemned. It was a word in Hebrew, which means it was a proper translation. And even if it wasn't (even though it was) they used other ways to explain homosexuality in the bible including "Sexually immoral".

I have proven my point every single round, an my opponent made up various excuses to counter them, which didn't work as you can see. I have proven my point, and countered his arguments. Translation has nothing to do with it, since he asked me to prove it's a sin NOW. Because of such, his excuse of translation is irrelevant, and also false, as I have already proven. It is backed up by no proof

I proved it was in the Bible. I proved the bible condemns it. I proved his translation excuses are false. I already proved my point every round.

He on the other hand proved nothing. Can you disprove it was in the bible? No you can't because it is in the bible as i have already proven. He is unable to prove any further contentions, because my statements are fact.

sources:
1. http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Tristboi22

Pro

What part of "The Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew" do you not understand? YOU maybe looking at the English Bible because it is the only Bible YOU understand, however, it is NOT the most accurate translation. We rely on the English version as long as it is translated correctly. I have proven that it is not. Galatians 5 and the other verses I quoted in my second post agree with the Greek text. Can you prove that they do not agree with the Greek?

"There is no single word in Hebrew or Greek which lends itself to a simple word-for-word translation of "homosexual." The word appeared in English for the first time in 1912 and in the Bible for the first time in the 1946 RSV in 1 Corinthians 6:9. http://www.religion-online.org... There is a Hebrew and Greek word for "homosexual" NOW, but the Bible was not written NOW. That puts an end to your argument.

The verse you quoted in 1 Timothy uses the same word "arsenkoites" and I have already shown that no one knows for certain what Paul meant when he used that word. You have not offered evidence to show that "sexually immoral" refers to homosexuals, it is simply your opinion. Repeating it does not make it so.

"Yes, it says to love each other, and that it's the end of the law. But this does not mean something is not a sin, it means he will forgive someone for sinning. It says in the old testament not to kill. Now that the law is gone, does it mean murder is no longer a sin? Of course not! Same goes for homosexuality. The fact that it even appears in the new covenant proves my points."

Fist of all, killing someone would not be loving, so it would still be a sin, so your argument is absurd. Homosexuality does not harm anyone and certainly is not "unloving to your neighbor", however, your judgement IS. The purpose of the law is so that sin would INCREASE! Romans 5:20, "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more..." To sum this part up, I never said we don't sin anymore, but Galatians 5:14 tells us how not to sin. You still have not shown how homosexuality fits into that definition.

1) Homosexuality is NOT condemned in the Old or New Testament.
2) I have proven there was no Greek nor Hebrew word for "homosexuality" the time the Bible was written.
3) My opponent offered no proof that "sexually immoral" includes homosexuals, but did say, " And if they didn't use homosexuals, they may have also used "sexually immoral" which I am pretty sure was dated back then. Since both mean the same, it is highly possible that it was in the Bible." He goes on and on to say that he has FACTS to back up his claims, but clearly in this case, it is ALL his opinion. I'm not interested in his opinion, just the facts. "Pretty sure" is pretty pathetic.

You say that "translation has nothing to do with it", then can I write my own translation of the Bible in English and would you agree to use that one? If not, why not? "Translation" has nothing to do with it, right? Yes I did ask you to prove that it is a sin NOW. You have failed to do so. You said that I proved "nothing". I have shown that your "proof texts" are nothing but mistranslations of the original manuscripts. You don't accept it as proof.

"Can you disprove it was in the bible?"

I'm not sure what you meant by "it", but if you are referring to the word "homosexual" I have proven that it was never in the original Greek nor Hebrew text. It did not appear until 1946 in the Revised Standard Version.

I'm surprised you never mentioned Romans 1:27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.""

My rebuttal for the verse my opponent did not use:
First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we?

Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE":

1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair.A279; It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans .
"phusis (`6;`5;`3;_3;`2;)," We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another.

And that is it! Except for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, those are the only verses that Christians LOVE to use to condemn homosexuality. While we are on the subject of Genesis 19, it says,

"9 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."

This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we?

1) In closing, one might ask WHY I mentioned the other verses that Christians attempt to use to prove that homosexuality is a sin. To be honest, I figured I would beat him to the "punch". At this point, I'm not sure he would have possessed the knowledge to do so in retrospect. These verses have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does condemn homosexuality in certain cases, (adultery, rape, lust, ect.) just as it condemns heterosexuality in the same cases.

2) My opponent seems to think that ANY English Bible is acceptable as long as it was written recently. He fails to understand that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and that sometimes we must look at the original language that it was written in order to fully comprehend meaning. The Greek and Hebrew does trump the English language given the fact that the Bible was not written in English.

3) My opponent only offered 4 verses to defend his position for which he offered no evidence that the word "homosexual" was in the original manuscripts. I have offered evidence of when the word was translated and put into the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. He has not shown that the verses in Leviticus have anything to do at all with 2 committed and loving members of the same sex. I have proven that it had to do with "a male laying with a male in the bedding of your wife (adutery). Adultery is NOT homosexuality.

4) Last of all my opponent has not dealt completely with Galatians 5:14 where it says, "Then entire law is summed up into one; love your neighbor as yourself". My opponent has offered not one shred of evidence that homosexuality is "not loving your neighbor as yourself". Until he can, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN!

Thank you!
Jabuticaba

Con

Thanks for the debate. Now to continue.

Rebuttals:

"We rely on the English version as long as it is translated correctly. I have proven that it is not."

You have not proven it is not translated correctly. You simply said so, but there is no proof supporting it. Because of such, all points given about translation remain invalid.

" Galatians 5 and the other verses I quoted in my second post agree with the Greek text. Can you prove that they do not agree with the Greek?"

Can you prove they can? No you can't, and you haven't. I already considered them as well, as you can see in my previous arguments.

""There is no single word in Hebrew or Greek which lends itself to a simple word-for-word translation of "homosexual." The word appeared in English for the first time in 1912 and in the Bible for the first time in the 1946 RSV in 1 Corinthians 6:9. http://www.religion-online.org...... There is a Hebrew and Greek word for "homosexual" NOW, but the Bible was not written NOW. That puts an end to your argument."

How does it put in end to it? I have proven even though homosexual may not have been dated back then (even though it has been) sexually immoral has also. Sexual immorality as I have already explained includes homosexuality. To add on, your source is unreliable. This educator did not demonstrate any proof whatsoever that it was introduced in this period. He could of made random numbers, considering this is but a blog/essay. I have already proven that homosexuality and sexually immoral were both words in Hebrew, proving thwey

"The verse you quoted in 1 Timothy uses the same word "arsenkoites" and I have already shown that no one knows for certain what Paul meant when he used that word. You have not offered evidence to show that "sexually immoral" refers to homosexuals, it is simply your opinion. Repeating it does not make it so."

I showed a source demonstrating proof.

"Fist of all, killing someone would not be loving, so it would still be a sin, so your argument is absurd. Homosexuality does not harm anyone and certainly is not "unloving to your neighbor", however, your judgement IS. The purpose of the law is so that sin would INCREASE! Romans 5:20, "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more..." To sum this part up, I never said we don't sin anymore, but Galatians 5:14 tells us how not to sin. You still have not shown how homosexuality fits into that definition."

I have proven homosexuality is a sin according to the bible in both new and old covenants. Because of such, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN.

"1) Homosexuality is NOT condemned in the Old or New Testament."

Old testament
"Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)"

New testament
"1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God."

As you can see, it is condemned in both new and old testament. I have proven this various times through each round.

"2) I have proven there was no Greek nor Hebrew word for "homosexuality" the time the Bible was written."

I have proved it was, you put a random source with no proof backing it up. Your points of translation are invalid.

"3) My opponent offered no proof that "sexually immoral" includes homosexuals, but did say, " And if they didn't use homosexuals, they may have also used "sexually immoral" which I am pretty sure was dated back then. Since both mean the same, it is highly possible that it was in the Bible." He goes on and on to say that he has FACTS to back up his claims, but clearly in this case, it is ALL his opinion. I'm not interested in his opinion, just the facts. "Pretty sure" is pretty pathetic."

Well that was a rude comment. And I have proven sexually immoral was in the bible, and that HOMOSEXUALITY IS PART OF IT.

"You say that "translation has nothing to do with it", then can I write my own translation of the Bible in English and would you agree to use that one? If not, why not? "Translation" has nothing to do with it, right? Yes I did ask you to prove that it is a sin NOW. You have failed to do so. You said that I proved "nothing". I have shown that your "proof texts" are nothing but mistranslations of the original manuscripts. You don't accept it as proof."

The reason I wouldn't believe you is because you have no experience with Hebrew, and you did not legally create it. Furthermore, why would I believe someone's translation of the bible when they can't even admit homosexuality was in it, even though it clearly was as I have proven?

"I'm not sure what you meant by "it", but if you are referring to the word "homosexual" I have proven that it was never in the original Greek nor Hebrew text. It did not appear until 1946 in the Revised Standard Version."

No proof

"1) In closing, one might ask WHY I mentioned the other verses that Christians attempt to use to prove that homosexuality is a sin. To be honest, I figured I would beat him to the "punch". At this point, I'm not sure he would have possessed the knowledge to do so in retrospect. These verses have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does condemn homosexuality in certain cases, (adultery, rape, lust, ect.) just as it condemns heterosexuality in the same cases."

First of all, I would like to point out my opponent agreed with me, leading to somewhat of a concession. However, I have already proven it condemns homosexuality in the bible, and my opponent was unable to prove it wasn't. His main excuse was translation, which I proved wrong. His second excuse was other verses, which I also proved wrong.

"2) My opponent seems to think that ANY English Bible is acceptable as long as it was written recently. He fails to understand that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and that sometimes we must look at the original language that it was written in order to fully comprehend meaning. The Greek and Hebrew does trump the English language given the fact that the Bible was not written in English."

Though it may not be correct (even though it is) my opponent asked if it was in the bible. Since it is in the English bible, I have proven my point.

"3) My opponent only offered 4 verses to defend his position for which he offered no evidence that the word "homosexual" was in the original manuscripts. I have offered evidence of when the word was translated and put into the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. He has not shown that the verses in Leviticus have anything to do at all with 2 committed and loving members of the same sex. I have proven that it had to do with "a male laying with a male in the bedding of your wife (adutery). Adultery is NOT homosexuality."

You have offered no valid proof whatsoever. My verses came directly from the bible. I have already proven that homosexuality did not come in the bible in 1946. I have proven in the bible homosexuality is a sin with the correct verses I demonstrated.

"4) Last of all my opponent has not dealt completely with Galatians 5:14 where it says, "Then entire law is summed up into one; love your neighbor as yourself". My opponent has offered not one shred of evidence that homosexuality is "not loving your neighbor as yourself". Until he can, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN!"

Nice spelling of "neighbour". And loving your neighbour is not the same thing as having a romantic relationship with them. If it was like that, everyone would be sinning because everyone would be committing an act of adultery.

So now to prove I have won this debate.

My opponent's excuses were proven wrong. The verses from the bible were proven right. Since I have demonstrated that homosexuality is a sin in both new and old testament, my point is proven. Because of such, my opponent has no valid arguments to prove that homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible.
Debate Round No. 5
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
Read the debate. He did counter all your arguments tris.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+Jabuticaba
Where????????????????????????
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Jabuticaba
Rebutted in the debate.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+Jabuticaba
Stop avoiding questions and deal with REAL PROOF instead of "winning". What is your rebuttal for Romans 10:4 and Galatians 5:14? Until then, I'LL BE WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!! What is your rebuttal for my source in defeating your English translation of Lev 18:22? Until then, I'LL BE WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Jabuticaba
Where? in the debate. I have proven all of this, stop being stubborn, I am done responding to childish comments like yours. Just accept defeat, and accept my proof. Good bye, "improve your skills, then come find me" -wukong.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+Jabuticaba

Where is your rebuttal for Romans 10:4? Where is your rebuttal for Galatians 5:14? Show me chapter and verse that show that these verses are incorrect. Where does the New Testament say that we are still under the law of Moses? That;s what I thought! Until then, I'LL BE WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
+Jabuticaba Then where is it?
Where is the source you quoted to back up your claim that the verses in Leviticus should not be translated the way I said they should be? Until you can show it, I'LL BE WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

There was not a Greek nor Hebrew word for "homosexual" when the Bible was written. If anything, it confirms my argument. What evidence do you have to support that "arsenkoites" is translated, "homosexual"? There is no previous use of the word in history. I have already proven that there is NO PROOF, just assumptions about the word. Until you provide evidence or a rebuttal, I'LL BE WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

You don't like my wikipedia reference, look it up yourself then. I'm not doing your homework for you. I'll drop it when you do.
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Jabuticaba
I rebutted all of them, proved all of them wrong, and commenter and voters agree. Read the debate properly. Your stubbornness is getting the best of you.
Posted by Tristboi22 2 years ago
Tristboi22
As I said before, I'm not interested in "winning" or losing in these debates; considering who the voters are. You still have not given a rebuttal to my arguments and you never will.
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Jabuticaba
Eh whatever, this is the comment section, it doesn't matter here. I won the debate. now stop spamming the comments section.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Tristboi22JabuticabaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally don't believe that there is anything that can be truly called a sin, since Sin actually does not exist in reality, so in that regard Pro is correct, but Pro doesn't argue this case as he is sticking to the Bible which is on Con's side only. So Pro is fighting a losing argument. Though Con became too aggressive, probably from frustration, but even in frustration, remaining calm and collected brings the best results and doesn't lose conduct points. It was an impossible debate for Pro to win using Bible only, if Pro argued about Reality, where God is not evident at all, then Sin is not evident at all, so in Reality Homosexuality is not a Sin, it is an abnormal condition possibly from birth defect (genetic/brain abnormality) or from environmental influences, but either way, it is not a Sin.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Tristboi22JabuticabaTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to be slightly arrogant in his arguments so I have to give conduct points to Con. Source and argument go to con because he proved that homosexuality is in fact a sin as per the bible. Had I looked at the debate more carefully, I could have given spelling points out, but I left it as a tie
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 2 years ago
PiercedPanda
Tristboi22JabuticabaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an obvious win. Con already proved from the beginning that homosexuality is a sin. He demostrated the verses. Pro tried to argue, using things such as translation and such, but since he couldn't truly prove it because of the unreliable source, his point is invalid. Con also countered the points about how some verses counteract the verses about homosexuality, which is difficult to do. I found overall that con had better S&G because of pro's various spelling errors.