The Instigator
Bitch_Goddess
Pro (for)
The Contender
Phenenas
Con (against)

Homosexuals are not still condemned in the Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Phenenas has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 104044
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Bitch_Goddess

Pro

The title is quite self-explanatory.
I (pro) challenge Con to a debate on whether or not the Bible still does (or if it ever did) condemn homosexuals.

The first round will only be an acceptance round only.
Phenenas

Con

Hello, Pro! I'll be contending that Bible always has condemned homosexuals. I eagerly await your first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

Thank you for accepting!
I'd first like to state that I do indeed plan on being very thorough with my argument as much as I can. It will be quite a lot. I have come across many who believe that the Bible does condemn homosexuals, however, I believe that to be untrue. I am also open to new ideas! I will admit when I am wrong if proven, and I hope that it will be an understanding and civil debate.
I'll begin by stating the many verses supposedly used against homosexuals:
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Romans 1:26-32
Jude 1:7
(The story of Sodom and Gomorrah)

These ones are in my familiarity. If I am missing any that you have come to recognize, let me know!
So let's continue.
____________________________________________________________________
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 -
The Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for "a man to lie with a man as with a woman" in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East"so far as ancient texts discussed it"had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the points, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much. It was one of the most common practices there was, which relates to back to Sodom and Gomorrah (which I will get to later).
Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of "catcher" in such sexual activity.

1 Corinthians 6:9
The issue with that verse is a mistranslation of a made up, obscure Greek word, "arsenokoites". Conservative Bible translators corrupted the verse and translated it as "homosexuals" in 1959 A.D. Prior to that point, it never referred to gay people, especially not lesbians as Arseno means male. Yet, the word "homosexual", as we know today, refers to women too. An obvious bias view because guess what? Two women having reciprocative feelings of love towards one another wasn't even recognized as existing in the world until 1900 AD, nor was two men having such love. As said before, dominance was the common practice among men over boy "lovers".
No one really knows what it (arsenokoites) actually meant, however, in every classical usage of the word, it was always included in vice lists referring to economic exploitation. Never in the vice lists of sexual sins where it would be expected.
Philo, a contemporary of Paul viewed it as referring to Pagan prostitution in the Greco-Roman temples.

1 Timothy 1:9-10
The word 'homosexual', as mentioned before, was not even a word until 1900 AD. It would not only be impossible for the Bible to have originally meant, as we know, homosexuals today (men loving men, women loving women), but it shows how warped the Bible becomes throughout time. After all, the people who translate the Bible are human. There will be personal views (based on societies standards of that time) inserted in the Bible whether Christians believe it or not.

Romans 1:26-32
Romans is taken from Paul's philosophy on unbridled passion. It was pagan idolatry and temple sex rituals among heterosexuals that was the focus of Paul's issue. Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people.
If at least 95% of the world is in the lesbian, gay or bisexual category of today's world, it would be highly unlikely for Paul to have even come across a homosexual in his entire lifetime. It was, after all, thousands of years ago.

Jude 1:7 (The story of Sodom and Gomorrah)
The sexual sin in Sodom and Gomorrah, if you must have sexual sin, was clearly not homosexual activity, because that did not happen. Jude 7 (KJV) mentions:
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Strange flesh, as we know from an understanding of the original Greek words, can best be understood as "foreign flesh" or "different flesh". Most tellingly, Jewish scholars have never regarded homosexuality as being the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (and it is, after all, their holy text).
Ezekiel 16:49
"49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Never does it make mention of homosexuality, nor could it.
_____________________________________________________________________
I look forward to your argument. The ball is on your side.
Phenenas

Con

Thank you for your argument, Pro. Before getting into my rebuttal I’ll say a bit about my approach. Because you included quotes from several Christian books of the Bible, I’ll assume that we’re talking about a Christian perspective of Scripture and not, say, a Jewish one. With this in mind, it follows that if even one verse from the New Testament denounces homosexuality and isn’t contradicted anywhere else, my side is the right one. So I’ll very quickly breeze over most of the verses you used, because my argument rests on only one of them.

I wasn’t going to use the Book of Leviticus anyway, because if we’re following a Christian perspective, the laws of the Old Testament are abolished and is replaced with the law of Christ. Many verses back this up (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:15). And I agree that the Sodomites could be interpreted as something other than gay. However, throughout your arguments, I’ve found a major lingering problem. You make sweeping assumptions without a single source to be found. You say that when two males had sex in the ancient Middle East, it was usually an act of violence or rape. Where did you get this idea? A book? A website? You give us nothing but your word, which on this site is not enough.

You make the even more dubious assumption that homosexuality “as we know today” didn’t exist at all in premodern times, saying things like “Two women having reciprocative feelings of love towards one another wasn't even recognized as existing in the world until 1900 AD”. Where could you possibly have heard this, and why so specific a year? What about Sappho, who lived five centuries before Christ and whose home island is the origin of the word “lesbian”? She wrote erotic love poetry towards women, and this was recognized by scholars long before “1900 AD”. [1]

“Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people.”

Perhaps we should’ve defined homosexuality before starting this debate, because it seems we have wildly different ideas of what it is. Merriam-Webster’s definition is the one I will stick by: “of, relating to, or involving sexual activity between persons of the same sex”. [2] Sexual orientation wasn’t discovered back then? There was no “discovery”; there have always been different orientations, even before history. There weren’t any pride parades or LGBT summits back in ancient Judea, but that doesn’t make the gay people at that time any less gay. My point is, it’d be highly appreciated if Pro would offer up at least one source to back up what they are saying.

Now, onto my main argument. You accuse 1 Corinthians 6:9 of being a mistranslation. First of all, you again neglect to cite a source. If I was told this by a professor of Greek linguistics, I’d be convinced, but I see no research before me. Here is what I have found on the internet: gotquestions.com, an evangelical website unreliable in the realm of science but excellent at Biblical scholarship, breaks down the word arsenokoites you mentioned. [3] It is a compound word combining the words for “male” and “bed”. Koitai, the “bed” word, is obviously sexual, as it came down to English as “coitus”. The intent is clear: Paul is saying that gays will not go to Heaven. This is the quote I rely on when I say that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

With all due respect, your attempt to “debunk” this verse in particular was rather flimsy. Let’s examine some of the things you said.

“Conservative Bible translators corrupted the verse and translated it as "homosexuals" in 1959 A.D.”

Again, no source and no explanation. I’m baffled, to be honest; please elaborate on what happened in 1959.

“the word ‘homosexual’, as we know today, refers to women too.”

It almost seems like you’re admitting that Paul is denouncing male homosexuals. But if you do that, then I win the debate. At no point does the Bible specifically condemn lesbians, though it’s implied, because it says marriage is only between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4), and that sex outside of marriage is immoral (1 Corinthians 7:2). If you want to say that 6:9 doesn’t count because it’s only about gay dudes and not gay girls, you should’ve called this debate “ALL homosexuals are not still condemned in the Bible”, and even then, your argument wouldn’t really work.

I’ve already responded to your comment about homosexuality not being recognized until 1900, which I eagerly await a source on.

“No one really knows what it (arsenokoites) actually meant”

No, plenty of people know what it means, including me now. You say that it was always used to refer to economic exploitation. Can you give any examples? Because the list in 1 Corinthians had plenty of sexual sins.

That’s about all the points I wanted to make this round. Good luck, Pro!

Sources:
1. https://www.britannica.com...
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. https://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

My apologies for not specifying the religious affiliation was Christianity. I also apologize for not being completely thorough as I stated I would be before. Thank you for calling me out on that.

A1:
I brought up Leviticus because it was used in an argument by you in a previous debate you had been in. I always make sure to check out my contender before beginning my arguments. I understand that Leviticus (as well as the entire Old Testament itself) is no longer in line with the Christian laws. I thought it best to just include that bit in case you believed otherwise.
I must also say that the word "sodomite" is nothing but an inhabitant from some place called Sodom. Any other use of the word in regards to homosexual men is completely false and cannot be shown anywhere in the Bible. I call it false because there is no evidence anywhere from the source people act like it came from that it means homosexual males.

" You make sweeping assumptions without a single source to be found. You say that when two males had sex in the ancient Middle East, it was usually an act of violence or rape. Where did you get this idea? A book? A website? You give us nothing but your word, which on this site is not enough."
Biblical scholars have employed the social sciences to study the relational and gender patterns of the ancient Mediterranean world"the world that produced the Bible. Professor Mary Tolbert (a professor of Biblical studies in regards to LGBT, you can search her up) summarizes that research with the following words:
"The single most important concept that defines sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world, whether we are talking about the kingdoms of Egyptor of Assyriaor whether we are talking about the later kingdoms of Greeceand Rome, is that approved sexual acts never occurred between social equals. Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male"not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the Mediterranean.
In these societies, sexual acts between men did happen, but they happened in order to show dominance of one group of men or a man over another, especially during times of war. It was not uncommon for men who had conquered a foreign army to rape them in order to show they were dominant and of a higher status."
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

A2:
"You make the even more dubious assumption that homosexuality "as we know today" didn"t exist at all in premodern times, saying things like..."
I said it went unrecognized. At least, that is, among heterosexuals. Having sexual relations with the same-sex (exclusively because of attraction) did of course exist. However, it was highly unlikely (near impossible) for homosexuals to be recognized. Same-sex activity took place very common among old times, therefore it would be at least a 1 out of 100 chance of identifying a homosexual (especially since exclusively being attracted to the same-sex was, as mentioned before, not recognized until at least 1800-1900 AD)
Not inserted into English Bibles until 1940-50's AD:
https://carm.org...
https://serendipitydodah.files.wordpress.com...
Making of the word "homosexual":
http://rictornorton.co.uk...

A3:
You went past the first definition, why? Homosexuality (according to Merriam-Webster's definition) - "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex"
Men interested in dominance had no desire for the men themselves. Not to mention, I believe homosexuality to be that of a person being attracted sexually to the same-sex.
"There was no "discovery"; there have always been different orientations, even before history."
Of course, there were, and I'm not saying there weren't. It's like using that little 'trick question' from Middle School "before Mount Everest, what was the highest mountain in the world". It was always Mount Everest. Just because it hasn't been discovered or recognized, does not mean it doesn't/didn't exist before discovery.

A4:
"It is a compound word combining the words for "male" and "bed". Koitai, the "bed" word, is obviously sexual, as it came down to English as "coitus". The intent is clear: Paul is saying that gays will not go to Heaven. This is the quote I rely on when I say that the Bible condemns homosexuality."
I must ask, do you read the NIV or the KJV?
The KJV Bible was created before the NIV. If you look at the KJV, it states "abusers of themselves unto mankind". That was what the reference of "arsenokoites" was directed at, not the word "homosexual" itself. Because like I said, that did not even exist in the Bible until 1940's AD.
"Abusers of themselves unto mankind" reference:
https://www.stopbibleabuse.org...

"Again, no source and no explanation. I"m baffled, to be honest; please elaborate on what happened in 1959."
My links are given above in A2.

"At no point does the Bible specifically condemn lesbians, though it"s implied, because it says marriage is only between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4), and that sex outside of marriage is immoral (1 Corinthians 7:2)."
I simply implied that it further proves my point that sex between two men (more commonly a man and boy) were the directivity of this. It makes no mention, why? Because women did not do these actions. It was only among men that were recorded through history (unless you can find information on women popularly going to girl for sexual pleasure?). Women did not visit little girls for prostitution and "girl love" as the men did.
Link in A1.

"No, plenty of people know what it means, including me now. You say that it was always used to refer to economic exploitation. Can you give any examples? Because the list in 1 Corinthians had plenty of sexual sins."
I believe this was an error on my part. I don't know why I stated that therefore I admit to fault on my behalf for this area of the argument.

Overall Sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
2. https://carm.org...
3. https://serendipitydodah.files.wordpress.com...
4. http://rictornorton.co.uk...
5. https://www.stopbibleabuse.org...

Extra source:
(Abusers of themselves unto mankind reference)
6. http://www.adventistonline.com...
Phenenas

Con

I sadly know of a few Christians who support the death penalty for homosexuals after an uninformed reading of Leviticus, so it was probably wise to include it. I’m also grateful that you cited sources this time, because I was unsure of what to say at some points in Round 2. You provide us with a quote from Professor Mary Tolbert, in which she talks about every homosexual act involving a “penetrator” and “penetrated”.

But don’t we have the same dynamic today? Is there not usually a “dominant” and “submissive” partner for all acts of intercourse, gay or straight? I’m drawing from a very limited pool of knowledge about gay culture, so bear with me please. For a gay relationship, I suppose the roles could be interchangeable, but everyone has a preference right? That’s why we have “bears” and “twinks” - gay men with varying degrees of masculinity. It seems to me that Dr. Tolbert was trying to say that sodomy (excuse the word) really hasn’t changed that much since ancient times, and perhaps that we still live in the culture of “dominance and submission” that she mentioned.

She also mentions, or is misquoted to say, that male-on-male sex in Biblical times was 100% rape. This is impossible, and I can give you evidence why it’s impossible from the Bible itself. Throughout the books of 1 and 2 Kings, you will see mention, varying in wording by translation, of “male temple prostitutes”. These are the qedeshim in the Hebrew tongue, and are hated and reviled by the writers. They were exclusively gay prostitutes, which I can back up with evidence later if you wish [1]. This was a major oversight on Dr. Tolbert’s part, unless that quote was pulled out of context. The fact that men would pay money to engage in sex with other men basically destroys that rape theory. Also, I found something on Yahoo Answers that looks a little familiar: https://answers.yahoo.com...

Forgive me, that was a long, strange tangent. But I believe Pro’s point was that no actual gay relationships existed for the Bible to criticize, which is false. On to A2. From what I read, I hope that Pro’s not saying that homosexuality doesn’t exist unless the exact English word “homosexual” is used. I was about to type up my reasoning, but actually, one of your sources does it for me.

This article from the CARM you cited [2] explains in great detail why the word arsenokoites refers precisely to gays, and says the following at the end:

“Therefore it is easy to see why the word ‘homosexual’ was not used until later English translations. Once a more accurate English word existed, it was matched to the corresponding Greek word. Homosexuality is still a sin according to the Bible.”

Whoops. Don’t worry, I’ve made that exact same mistake before of pasting a source and reading it afterwards only to find it argues against me. You go on to say that “Men interested in dominance had no desire for the men themselves”. I’m sorry? From what I understand, a gay fellow can enjoy being “dominated” while still keeping an emotional bond with his dominator, and there’s no reason why this couldn’t happen in the B.C. times too. And as I’ve made clear, the Bible talks about same-sex attraction quite explicitly. It makes no mention of any emotional LGBT love stories, but why would a book coming out of an ultra-homophobic society do such a thing?

I’m aware of the faulty and flawed translation known as the King James, which renders “ox” as “unicorn” (Job 39:9-10). “Abusers of themselves unto mankind” doesn’t really get the point across, and as you admit, the word “homosexual” was not invented yet. If you wish to argue that the KJV is superior, I would remind you not only of the unicorn thing, but that it was last updated in 1611. The NIV was last updated in 2011.

You go on to ask me to search for historical examples of girl-on-girl love. Rather than do that, I’ll reiterate something I said last round. If I can prove to you that the Bible condemns ANY homosexuals, then I am the victor. If the title of this debate referred not to “homosexuals” but “ALL homosexuals”, that wouldn’t be the case. However, lesbians are condemned too by implication. I can’t think of any steamy Sapphic episodes in the Bible, but I’ll stick to what I said.

And that concludes Round 3. Back to you, Pro!

Sources:
1. http://dyneslines.blogspot.com...
2. https://carm.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

Before I begin, I must thank you for staying. For most people I attempt to create a debate with, they leave the 2nd or 3rd round.

There are almost always "dominant" and "submissive" partners. Except with the reference, Professor Mary Tolbert was making, it was primarily for dominance of one man over another to feel powerful and in-charge (as she said). Today, men and women have sex for pleasure and out of love, not primarily to show who is dominant over another. The positions of straight men and women are obvious, however, when one man took on another, it was significant because it showed the "taker"/penetrated (I guess you could call him) as inferior to that of the dominant subject. It was disrespected and considered unacceptable. Whereas that is not such as with straight people, nor had it been (providing zero evidence that it was) in Biblical times.
"In biblical times, sex was regarded as an activity engaged in by a dominant person and a submissive person. For a man to play the role of a submissive partner would be a reversal of roles, and unacceptable. [Most adults engaged in sexual activity today consider each other as equals.]"
Link: http://www.religioustolerance.org...

"This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male"not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the Mediterranean."
She then goes on to say that "in these societies", referencing to those that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated (in which was the act of "penetrated" was frowned upon). Not that there were none merely interested in the sex out of attraction for them. The majority of sex acts in Biblical times were merely, and subjectively, for heterosexual men to dominate another. I am not saying that homosexuals did not exist, I am saying that, simply, heterosexuals having sex with another man was majority rather than homosexuals and "a prevalent (because, as said before, the population of homosexuals would have been extremely low based on common sense out of today's statistics of homosexuality).

"This article from the CARM you cited [2] explains in great detail why the word arsenokoites refers precisely to gays, and says the following at the end:

'Therefore it is easy to see why the word "homosexual" was not used until later English translations. Once a more accurate English word existed, it was matched to the corresponding Greek word. Homosexuality is still a sin according to the Bible.'"
Except, from basic Greek-ology, it has been disproved from meaning "homosexual".
See second source cited: https://serendipitydodah.files.wordpress.com...
In a source used for the "'abusers of themselves unto mankind' reference", it explains the word as well.
"When paired with arsenokoitai, malakos seems to refer to a person that is a victim of sex with men " a slave, a prostitute, a catamite, a victim of rape " someone perhaps drawn into temple sexual rituals, and not necessarily male. With this word, Paul is referring to the victim of sexual (and financial?) coercion, whether pederasty, pedophilia, rape, or forced prostitution. And if malakos indicated an underage male prostitute, the following arsenokoites would mean the one who forced himself on the youth. This would apply to heterosexual gay-for-pay prostitutes as well, as it would in any case where a male was subjected to forced sexual activity."
Source: https://www.stopbibleabuse.org...

" You go on to say that "Men interested in dominance had no desire for the men themselves". I"m sorry? From what I understand, a gay fellow can enjoy being "dominated" while still keeping an emotional bond with his dominator"
Since you couldn't piece together what I meant, I will explain a bit more.
As I have been saying basically this entire time, heterosexual men were only interested in dominance among the penetrated. When I said that the men interested in dominance had no desire for the men themselves, I was explicitly (apparently not clearly enough) referring to heterosexual men who had sex with boys or raped other men (or induced to pagan temple sex rituals). Pure dominance was the interest that heterosexual men had towards others. However GAY men, of course, most likely had an emotional connection and bond with their partners, seen as they were actually attracted to them.

"It makes no mention of any emotional LGBT love stories"
Actually, that is quite untrue.
Though MANY Christians refuse to believe the relationship between Jonathan and David was a romantic one, the words used were clearly that of a love story.
Source: http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org...
It's shown even more clearly that people refuse to accept this as that of true love when people changed a verse, in some versions the Bible, from "he kissed" to "he shook hands with". It's quite sad.
Source: http://www.nairaland.com...
"Other translations have a different ending to the verse: ", and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
", and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
", and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. "
"If you wish to argue that the KJV is superior, I would remind you not only of the unicorn thing, but that it was last updated in 1611. The NIV was last updated in 2011."
The most previous point just helps further the case that as time goes on, the Bible becomes more and more warped.

"However, lesbians are condemned too by implication."
One thing I forgot to go back to (which I was planning on doing) was your reference to Matthew.
Jesus was answering a question about divorce. This is a verse that MANY tend to overlook to fit the anti-homosexual stance on the Bible. I'm sure your intent wasn't to completely ignore what it began to say, but to help further your case. However, like I said, it was based on divorce.
"Matthew 19:3-12 provides an interesting perspective into gay marriage as Jesus intended His disciples to understand it. Jesus' answer to the question about "divorce for any cause" is more fully recorded by Matthew than by Mark. In Matthew, Jesus lists three excep-tions to the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm ("all men cannot receive this saying")."
"19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven"t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"[a] 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
http://www.gaychristian101.com...

Over-all sources:
http://www.religioustolerance.org...
https://serendipitydodah.files.wordpress.com...
https://www.stopbibleabuse.org...
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org...
http://www.gaychristian101.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Phenenas 9 months ago
Phenenas
@Bitch_Goddess I'm so sorry that I didn't respond in time. This was such a busy weekend and I just forgot. I'm glad you enjoyed it, though.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 9 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
It's unfortunate Con was unable to post an argument for the 4th round. I found this debate to be intriguing and, more than anything, a bit fun.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
NIRV
Suppose a man has sex with another man as he would have sex with a woman. I hate what they have done. They must be put to death. Anything that happens to them will be their own fault.
"I hate what they have done." WHAT? What does that have that have ANYTHING to do with anything? "Anything that happens to them will be their own fault." Kind of ad libbing there just a bit huh?

NLV
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both of them have done a very sinful act. They must be put to death. They will suffer for their own sin.
"They will suffer"" more terminology.

NLT
"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.
"They are guilty of a capital offense."? Wow. So raping a 6 year old girl has the same value or less than homosexuality in their book? Oh and oh yeah, they also use the term "homosexuality".

WYC
If a man sleepeth with a man, by lechery of a woman, ever either hath wrought unleaveful thing, die they by death; their blood be on them. (If a man sleepeth with a man, like in fleshly coupling with a woman, they both have done an unlawful thing, and they both shall be put to death; their blood be on them.)
Se habla Espanol?

I betcha any amount of money that since being gay is now acceptable across the world, the bible within 20 years or so will once again be changed to suit man's wants needs and desires as it always has ever been since it hit the printing press. See? That's why no true god would ever trust text as a viable option as communication, the worst form of communication possible. Why wouldn't this chunk beef casserole god present actual evidence like simply talking to us? Duh. Nah. That's too much to ask.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
EXB
If a man "has sexual relations [LR39;lies] with another man as a man does with a woman, these two men have "done a hateful sin [committed an abomination]. They must be put to death. They have brought "it [blood] on themselves [18:22].
A hateful sin?

GW
When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.
Well well well well this has 0 to do with the KJV. "both men are doing something disgusting"? "They deserve to die?" Hmmm a Cannibal Corpse song? Oh that"s a good one.

ICB
""A man might have physical relations with another man as a man does with a woman. If he does, these two men have done a hated sin. They must be put to death. They have brought it on themselves.
""A man might have physical relations" MIGHT? And notice how neatly "They have brought it on themselves." is tacked on which has NOTHING to do with any other version? Hmmmm.

TLB
The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.
Ah yes, NOTHING whatsoever to do with the KJV. Nothing.

MSG
"If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.
Using the thesaurus again?

NASB
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
detestable? Bloodguiltness? Why do bible"s go-out-of-their-way to be confusing and thus use terms from the thesaurus? Why not use the original terminology?
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
Once again, here are only 16 English translations of Leviticus 20:13. And some of them get it completely wrong. Obviously and rather arrogantly. Ready?

KJV
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.

AMP
If a man lies [intimately] with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed a detestable (perverse, unnatural) act; they shall most certainly be put to death; their blood is on them.

AMPC
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
"If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman," Notice how this version is digging into the transgender issue? And then it goes way way way way overboard with its thesaurus digging ins of "offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable);" I mean how does this version know that its translation is EXACTLY right?

CEB
If a man has sexual intercourse with a man as he would with a woman, the two of them have done something detestable. They must be executed; their blood is on their own heads.
"If a man has sexual intercourse with a man as he would with a woman, the two of them have done something detestable." Completely and totally 100% different from "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: " And then the CEB continues "They must be executed;" Here we go with the thesaurus

CEV
It"s disgusting for men to have sex with one another, and those who do will be put to death, just as they deserve.

ERV
"If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
Here is a super prime reason why absolutely nobody should EVER believe in that maggoty god according to the bible.
Listed below are 16 English translations of one and only one verse from the bible. It is Leviticus 20:13.
Now notice how some of the verses listed below have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other? Notice how some of the verses go way way way out of their way to do their best and use the thesaurus and or come up with some other terminology? Notice also how some of them go way way way out of their way to do a lot of ad-libbing? And for what? I mean why? Why change the KJV, the version which is the version that is in nearly every household here in the states? Especially when its simply NOT needed nor necessary? And what"s really nerve racking is some of the verses use the actual word "homosexuality". Oh please! The term homosexuality was NOT scribed into the bible until 1947! So those verses and the bible"s that use them are completely worthless and null and void and cannot and should not under any circumstance be taken seriously nor read, not ever and are true abominations.
Absolutely no one, nobody, not the pope, not you, not me, not any priest, not any pastor, not any minister, not any rabbi interprets the bible correctly because of how different the bible"s are. The verses below proves this 100% as to how badly translations are scribed and how none of them can possibly be correct especially the bible you have right in front of you. And since none of them are correct, the entire bible is incorrect. 1 + 1 = 2 wrong verses. 2 + 2 = 4 wrong verses. 4 + 4 = 8 wrong verses. 8 + 8 = 16 wrong verses. And so on and so on all the way on up to thousands so that the entire bible becomes nonsense and gibberish. Who is to say which translation is correct? Who is to say which translation is the most accurate and should be observed? How can anyone because of how different translations are especially from language to language? You can"t that"s for sure.
Posted by Phenenas 9 months ago
Phenenas
Just a quick personal note. From what I understand, Pro herself is gay. I want to make clear that don't in any way condone homophobia. I hope nobody is offended or hurt by my comments; this is what the Bible says, not me.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
Oh, did the bible get rewritten?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.