The Instigator
tychosonic
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
masterharrison30
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Religious Beliefs Based only on the Christian Bible Must Condemn Homosexual Relationships

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 15869
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

tychosonic

Con

When determining which religious beliefs are specifically supported by the Christian Bible and which are not, it is paramount to review specific scriptures relating to the topic. The Christian Bible only mentions homosexual behavior 3 times in the New Testament, they are as follows:

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." -Romans 1:27 NASB

"Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB

"realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"- 1 Timothy 1:9-10 NASB

In addition, there is one scripture in the Old Testament that refers directly to homosexuality, the well known Leviticus 18:22. But, It should be noted though that the commandments given to the Israelites in the Old Testament do not apply to Christians, and therefore those scriptures have no bearing on religious beliefs based on the Christian Bible. This is illustrated in the following scriptures:

"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." Galatians 3:23-25

"by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace"- Ephesians 2:15

As such, this debate should center around scriptures in the New Testament as it can been seen that the New Testament does not require the Old Testament Commandments to be upheld. Now to specifically analyze the New Testament scriptures that mention homosexuality.

1 Corinthians mentions a list of offenders that will not enter the kingdom of heaven and, in the NIV and NASB versions of the bible, homosexuals are mentioned among the other deviants that will not enter. In theses versions, the word in the original Greek text that gets translated to homosexuals is arsenokoitai. This is a compound word made up of the greek words "arsen" meaning man, and "koitai" which is a distinctly feminine verb meaning "to have sex with". The literal translation of arsenokoitai is "male-bedder". The word arsenokoitai is found only twice in all of the literature ever written in the history of the world, once in 1 Corinthians, and once in 1 Timothy. This word is only translated to mean homosexual in 2 out of the several hundreds of translations of the Bible. The first English Translation of the bible translates the word as "those who masturbate" for example, and several other version translate arsenokoitai as "defilers of themselves with humanity". The most accurate translation of arsenokoitai would be the "temple prostitutes", as arsenokoitai is most closely related to the Hebrew word "quadesh". Quadesh is found in 1 Kings 14:24 (as well as elsewhere throughout Kings) and refers specifically to male prostitutes that loitered in Pagan temples. This relationship becomes even more clear when you look at the preceding type of deviant mentioned in the Corinthians list, the effimanite, or Malakos. Malakos literally translates to "soft" and has never been used in greek liturature to describe someone who is effiminate. Every other usage of malakos refers to someone with moral weakness or excess. Another example of mis-translation. It should be noted that even under the incorrect translation of arsenokoitai, only male homosexual relationships would be condemned and not female ones, as "arsen" refers specifically to men. Let it also be observed that there was no word to describe homosexuals in any language until the late 1800's, and someone wishing to describe a homosexual in writing before that time would have used a descriptive phrase, not a single word. [1]

1 Timothy 1:9-10 mentions homosexuals a similar manner as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and also uses the same incorrect translation of arsenokoitai.

The argument against an anti-homosexual reading of Romans 1:27 is summarized best by Jeremy Punt, a Doctoral student in the department of Old and New Testament at the University of Stellenbosch:

"The nature of Paul's argument in Romans 1 suggests that it is in a certain way
an elaborated version of the argument found in 1 Thessalonians (1 Th 4:3-6 in
particular), and cannot simply be cited in arguing against homosexuality today.
Paul is concerned about the purity of followers of Christ from Gentile stock and
they should thus avoid the sexual practices of Gentiles who do not know God,
inevitably practices in which people are wronged. Paul did not, however, provide specific directives for either lesbigays who know God or lesbigays in committed relationships that do not exploit anyone, because such identities were not readily available options in the first century CE.
A sexual ethic informed by perspectives from the New Testament challenges the assumptions which make reproductive sex into a norm. For example, when Jesus or Paul talks about marriage, neither of them insists upon procreation "as a rational or functional justification". Sexual orientation or "constitutional" or "core" homosexuality was not considered options in ancient thinking about sexuality; neither were committed, caring same-sex relationships seriously contemplated in a context where homoerotic acts were necessarily conflated with "immorality, debauchery and licentiousness". In short, Paul's argument in Romans 1 cannot be applied directly to what modern people know about homosexuality" [2]

Another less in depth critique of the Romans scriptures (one that is found in the entirety of Punt's paper) hinges on the idea that Romans 1:27 mentions that men "gave up" the natural function of women, which indicates that the men discussed in this scripture are men who have slept with women before. Paul is talking about straight men in this scripture not gay men who have never touched a woman, as in order to give something up you must have had it in the first place. What Paul is referring to here, given the context of the time it was written, is ritualized pagan sex acts. It is obvious from this scripture that Paul is telling a story of past events at the beginning of Romans. It is also worthy to note that Paul never mandates that homosexual relationships are wrong and this scripture never mentions women having sex with women.

My three main points are as such:

1. The Bible presents no anti-homosexual stance and the cause of people deriving anti-homosexual beliefs from the bible all stem from mistranslations and a non-understanding of the context of the scriptures.

2. Even if the mistranslations in the Bible were correct, the bible would still only condemn men having sex with men. The Bible never condemns celibate homosexual relationships, homosexual marriage, or adoption by homosexuals. Therefore the condemnation of such things by Christians has no basis in the biblical text.

3. The Bible at no point ever mentions women having sex with women and therefore the condemnation of Lesbian relationships by Christians also has no basis in the biblical text.

[1] http://fogarty.org...
[2] http://www.hts.org.za...
masterharrison30

Pro

That is alot of information you have, and i am impressed at the length you have gone to to express your opinion, but you have made the assumption that a descicion of wether or not something is sinful, should be decided on wether or not (your) belief on which interpretation of scripture is correct, you have made statements but given no proof, and i am herd pressed to believe that you understand and have read the original greek texts yourself, also the greek language purposefully used words that covered a broad spectrum of words, therefore when translated to a different language it can be misinterpreted in many ways because some translators may prefer to use the word they perceive it as, while another perceives it a different way, when in reality it was meant to mean many different things, the same way (love) in english can mean love of a friend, love of a wife, or love of a mother.

On another note, the old testament is not useless in teaching of what is right and what is sinful, when Jesus speaks of coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, he means just that, not to remove laws that were already there, but to clarify what already was
here is something I would have neither time nor mental ability to create, but i think the person who did and I will post it here on his behalf, this essay was not intended to reprove homosexualtiy, but it does clarify on the subject of the validity of the old testament

(
Even with the Old Testament of the Bible showing support for martial arts training, some might argue that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament – that God's position on warfare changed when Jesus came on the scene. It might be said that the God of the Old Testament was about war and the God of the New Testament is about peace.

The Bible, however, does not support this. James 1:17 says that God does not change, and Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ [God] is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. As we continue to study this topic, we will see that the New Testament also discusses self-defense and the idea of martial arts.

Matthew 5:38-42, in which Jesus talks about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", has been used to condemn martial arts. It reads, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." At first glance this passage seems to be advocating a reversal of the Old Testament laws. I was swayed by this argument myself, and was torn in my own convictions for some time. But when I finally decided to dig deeper into the Bible, I was amazed and encouraged to find some answers.

Many people who want to obey the Bible simply gloss over this scripture, like I did, because they are torn between what they think the Bible says and their consciences telling them to prepare for warfare and to protect.

The truth is that Jesus never intended to abolish the Old Testament laws. He only intended to clarify them, to reinforce them, fulfill them, and reveal God's heart behind them. This is what Jesus says just moments earlier in Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the [Old Testament] Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." When Jesus speaks about "turning the other cheek", in Matthew 5, he is referring to the Old Testament Mosaic laws found in Exodus 21, 22 and 23. These chapters in Exodus contain the laws God gave to his people, which reinforce and further detail the famous "ten commandments". Jesus is specifically referring to Exodus 21:22 where God explains what punishment should be given if men are fighting and an innocent by-stander is harmed (in this instance, a pregnant woman). This is not a scripture about self-defense but about restitution and punishment for a crime. Jesus referred to this scripture because the people, in religious self-righteousness, were using this particular scripture to justify retaliation and vengeance. "An eye for an eye" had become an excuse to be intolerant and merciless toward one another. A closer look at the "act of aggression" that Jesus refers to as a strike on the cheek, will reveal that he is talking about an insult rather than a fighting fist. The word "strike" is translated from the Greek word "rhapizo" which is used interchangeably with the word "slap". In the Jewish culture (as in many other cultures), a slap in the face was a form of humiliation or rebuke. It was not necessarily a physical attack and was not meant to result in physical harm. Even Exodus 21:21 (regarding "an eye for an eye") says that if, as a result of a conflict, a pregnant by-stander is forced to give birth pre-maturely but there is no serious injury to the woman or the baby, "an eye for an eye" should not be applied as a punishment. Jesus is confirming that this Old Testament law regarding punishment is not to be used as an excuse for retaliation when inconvenienced or insulted. Jesus is exposing the heart of man and is further clarifying the Old Testament Law. God's desire is that we don't retaliate but rather that we restrain our emotions in the heat of conflict and maintain righteousness and mercifulness. We are not to pounce on our adversary at the first sign that we have been offended. The ultimate goal of God is to win over the offender, help him to see God's mercy and institute a change of heart in the offender (see 2 Peter 3:9-15 and Luke 9:51-56 for further study).
Debate Round No. 1
tychosonic

Con

Pro: "you have made the assumption that a decision of weather or not something is sinful, should be decided on weather or not (your) belief on which interpretation of scripture is correct"

The bulk of my argument had nothing to do with the interpretation of scripture but with the translation of scripture. Interpretation is subjective while translation is completely objective.

Pro: "On another note, the old testament is not useless in teaching of what is right and what is sinful, when Jesus speaks of coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, he means just that, not to remove laws that were already there, but to clarify what already was"

I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that, according to the scripture, Jesus fulfilled the law and under the New Testament Christians aren't required to follow the Jewish commandments. Leviticus has other commands such as "do not eat shrimp" and "do not wear clothing of mixed fabrics", but these things are no longer considered sinful. Even one of the ten commandments, "Thou shall rest on the Sabbath", is no longer considered sinful to break, as all Christians break this commandment on a weekly basis. Since Christians do not hold all of the commandments it wouldn't make any sense to hold just a hand full of commandments as still being applicable today. If we did this, I could justify the murder of an adulterer as not being sinful for the sole reason that it is a commandment in the Old Testament. And besides all of this, even if Christians still chose to abide by the Old Testament, it would have no effect on my argument as Leviticus only condemns homosexual sex between two males. Celibate homosexual relationships would still be permissible as would fully sexual lesbian relationships.

Pro: "you have made statements but given no proof"

I have given proof. There is proof in my argument that arsenokoitai is mistranslated and you have offered nothing to the contrary. I have also given proof that even if you base your beliefs on the literal, mistranslated version of the Bible, only sex between two males is condemned and not sex between two women or other sexless homosexual relationships. I would have to say that you have offered no proof whatsoever that religious beliefs based only on the Christian Bible must condemn homosexual relationships. As such I challenge you to refute the three points I made at the end of my first post.
masterharrison30

Pro

Look a tranlation of the bible is just as subjective as the beleif of what the individual words mean, do you not realize that the translations that you read are simply the individual interpretations of different orginizations?

and you say you have proof of what you are trying to put forward but I do not tsee any proof, you have simply told me what you believe the original text meant and gone in to detail about why you believe it using "the arsenokoitai text" which by the why you have given no proof that that text sais what you think is sais, you have simply said that this text is mistranslated because this means something else, very ellaborate i might say, but not proof. In fact there isnt much way to prove that at all over the internet, for it would require you personally pointing out these "errors" of your and showing me in comparison why original arsenokoitai text sais what you think it does

Also you are trying to claim that if homosexual relationships are a sin, the bible sais nothing on female homosexuality, this is were I see a bit of a hidden problem, you see the bible adrressess the whole of human creation as man, if you have ever read proverbs you would see how everything is always towards man, "The wise MAN knows his own ignorance, the fool thinks he knows everything". As Proverbs the book of wisdom was only speaking to men just because it only addressed men, it was meaning humanity in general, women can also be wise, proverbs is just as much for them as it is for us, it is obvious that the bible treats the human race as REPRESENTED by man and therefore masculine, in english when speaking about a group of people you do not know the gender of, likewise you are suppose to use the rule of assuming the crowd is male ex. ( i wonder if those guys will be here soon). another problem with that is that you are saying that just because the bibke does not expressively condemn something, that it supports it? the bible never expressively condemns me planting a grenade in a building belonging to someone else and letting it go off while no ones there, in effect destroying someones home while they are gone, the bible never mentions those exact words so does that mean i should go ahead and do it? The bible is not meant to be read as a text book, it is meant to be read as a story with instructions on how to live your life in correspondence to Gods will.

You have made the claim that resting on the sabbath day is no longer a sin because christians do not do it anymore? You do not look to other christians and say, ah he isnt doing that so it must be ok, the bible is the law not the behavior of its iledged followers, i rest on the sabbath and i know plenty other christians who do, also adulterers still do deserve the death penalty, that has not miraculously changed, Jesus came to fulfill the law remember, adulterers still deserve death, but because of Jesus' sacrifice they can be forgivin, and you called the killing of adulterers "murder" its not like they were killed on the spot, they went through trial by the elders of the tribe
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

Deuteronomy 22:16 (And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; ) as you can see they did not just punish people they were given a sort of trial

You have been trying to make a statement that the bible never specifically sais that homosexuality is wrong, and I would just like you to read the first few chapters of Genisis, God did not make to men and say it is good, he did not make two women and say it was good, he made a women and a man, and said this is good. If you read the bible looking for ways to be righteous instead of ways to get by with what you can you will see how many more things you are missing, The bible isnt going to go into every detail of what we should do every second of the day, its part of becoming a mature christian and understanding the bibles principles rather than searching it for ways to continue living our lives how we want without feeling bad about it. Why do you think God called us inventors of evil things? We will come up with more desperately wicked sins to satisfy our lust than could ever possibly fit in a book, you must come to an understanding of the bibles principles to see that it is wrong sometimes, although there is plenty proof that you have tried to dismiss but given no solid and/or porvable evidence
Romans 1:30 (Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, INVENTORS OF EVIL THINGS , disobedient to parents, )

At last if you refuse to believe all of this, remember that homosexuality, as drinking etc... is a falter to those trying to come to christ, things that if are not sinful in nature, are sinful because you do not need them and are causing those who are weak in there faith to falter because of our desires to do as we wish because we believe what we do is not sinful, Just read the versus im about to post up, the bible is far more convincing than i will ever be

Galatians 5
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another
Debate Round No. 2
tychosonic

Con

Pro: "Look a translation of the bible is just as subjective as the belief of what the individual words mean, do you not realize that the translations that you read are simply the individual interpretations of different organizations?"

Translations of phrases and entire passages can be subjective, but the translation of a single word isn't.

Pro: "you have simply said that this text is mistranslated because this means something else, very elaborate I might say, but not proof."

I have offered proof that the word has been mistranslated, and given it's literal translated meaning. No one can actually decided on the meaning of the word, but most scholars are certain that arsenokoitai does not refer to homosexuals.
The Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 is along the lines of "arsen should not koitai with arsen". This is were the confusion arises with arsenokoitai, but without a qualifier after koitai, all we know is that Paul is referring to a man who has sex but we don't know with who. This is why it's important that we look at the context of the word. The closest word to arsenokoitai that could relate is malakos, with is used elsewhere in the bible to reffer to both sexes as sperate times. So it could be that Paul is talking about men who have sex with malakos, which can be either male or female. The most prominent researcher on this subject, the professor of religious studies at Yale University, Dr. Dale Martin, states that the meaning of arsenokoitai is extremely obscure and most likely doesn't mean homosexual. He also goes on to say that it shouldn't be used to condemn them. [1]

Pro- "Also you are trying to claim that if homosexual relationships are a sin, the bible says nothing on female homosexuality, this is were I see a bit of a hidden problem, you see the bible addressees the whole of human creation as man"

This is true, but the use of man to mean both a single male and all of mankind is only found in English. In both Greek and Hebrew there are completely separate words for man and mankind and at no point does the Greek word for man (arsen) ever refer to the entirety of humanity [2]. The Hebrew word for man (ish) used in Leviticus 18:22 refers only to a man or a group of men, but it is never used to refer in anyway to a female. The Hebrew word for mankind is enosh, which is not used in Leviticus, but as we've established before, Christians are not bound be Levitical Law. Therefore my point about lesbianism still stands.

Pro- "another problem with that is that you are saying that just because the bible does not expressively condemn something, that it supports it?"

I never said the Bible supports it. The Bible is mute on the subject. The Bible is also mute on the subject of playing professional sports, but it would be ridiculous to condemn those who play professional sports because the Bible doesn't support such action. The Bible does, however, support the owning of slaves and does not condemn those who own them. As such the Bible has been used in the past to justify racism and bigotry, just as it is being used now to justify anti-homosexual stances.

Pro- "the bible never expressively condemns me planting a grenade in a building belonging to someone else and letting it go off while no ones there, in effect destroying someone's home while they are gone, the bible never mentions those exact words so does that mean I should go ahead and do it?"

The Bible does condemn you for doing so, as doing this would violate Jesus' words when he told us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Blowing up a house would belonging to some else is indirectly condemned in that it might not be expressly written, but it violates a greater commandment as stated by Jesus. Homosexual relationships on the other hand are not condemned directly or indirectly through other commandments.

Pro- "At last if you refuse to believe all of this, remember that homosexuality, as drinking etc... is a falter to those trying to come to Christ, things that if are not sinful in nature, are sinful because you do not need them and are causing those who are weak in there faith to falter because of our desires to do as we wish because we believe what we do is not sinful"

Under this logic someone could condemn anything by saying that it causes them to falter in their faith. For instance, a Pentecostal could condemn women for cutting their hair by saying that they perceive it is sinful. Women cutting their hair is not necessary and not supported by the Bible. Paul speaks on this in Romans when he talks to believers about whether or not they should eat meat sacrificed to idols. His conclusion that eating this meat is not sinful but if you are around someone who thinks it is then don't do it. The same can be said for the Christian homosexual, it isn't sinful, but you might not want to parade it around in front of people who think it is sinful. The problem here is not with sin or with god, but with other peoples prejudices.

As you can see, the Bible at no point condemns homosexual relationships or fully sexual lesbian relationships.

[1] http://www.clgs.org...
[2] http://strongsnumbers.com...
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org...
masterharrison30

Pro

(KJV) Romans 1:27 (And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. )

(ASV) Romans 1:27 (and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.)

(HCSB) Romans 1:27 (The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourse [s] with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males (AT) and received in their own persons [t] the appropriate penalty for their perversion.)

(NLT) Romans 1:27 (And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.)

(ESV) Romans 1:27 (and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(AX) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.)

You can see where im going with this, if you look through any translation of the bible they all point to this meaning homosexuality, any attempt to say that it is talking about something other than that is simply avoiding the facts for your own purpose, it is obviously there to see. You say that "most" scholars do not think that the bible points towards homosexuality is a sin, I may have only posted a few translations but to post them all would take up mure than my word limit. If there are truly more that agree to this point your making i would like to see the proof of consensus made that there are (in fact) a higher percentage of translators who do in fact think this, because if there is they may want to publish there bible that does not condemn homosexuality very soon because i only have a few that i find do so.

Also if you have a problem with the versus of Galations I would suggest you look to yourself instead of me, it is not my logic I have spoken to you, those were the direct versus of the bible, so your problem is not with me, it is with the bible itself. If you disagree with the bible as such you have seem to proven, I would say that this debate is for the most part useless.

Also you say i would not be loving my neighbor, but using your logic I could simply look back at the translation and deviate it according to my own purposes, for it simply sais to love my neighbor and nothing more, many horrid things can be done in the name of love, but i must use my bible (although it does not always specifically guide me) the stories, riddles, and original order of Gods creation guide me to understand a moral law in which is not directly stated, to read the bible and think that it is always completely straight forward and only look skin deep into its real meaning, is to assume the morals of a computer.

When you read your bible you do not change the meaning based on what you want it to mean, you change yourself according to what the bible sais.

(I hope you have gotten as much from my opinion as I have from yours, you have certainly made some interesting points and i have learned alot from what you have suggested. Please note that this was all in good spirit, and i have no hatred for you or what you believe, I do believe homosexuality is a sin and will be punished, but no more than the sins of fornication, disobedience, or all others mentioned in Romans, some sins of which i must call my own. I hope you keep studying further in your bible on the subject, I wish you well in your searching for truth, if you have found how i think to be remotely interesting feel free to discuss with me anything else you find neccessary in the future)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
tychosonicmasterharrison30Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: L
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
tychosonicmasterharrison30Tied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with con before and after the debate. Both of their conduct was respectful, so tied there. Con had better grammar, and in my opinion had better arguments. Pro, however, used better sources as he directly quoted the bible instead of offering an interpretation.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
tychosonicmasterharrison30Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some major spelling issues and grammar flaws, which made it somewhat difficult to follow. As for the arguments, it seem more like a discussion rather than a debate and none of Con's arguments were adequately put down.
Vote Placed by AznWords 6 years ago
AznWords
tychosonicmasterharrison30Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was slightly back and forth till Pros post on the last round when he makes points that either have already been addressed by Con or were weak, unsound and unconvincing. Bad spelling for Pro should be easily spotted and occurs over and over.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tychosonicmasterharrison30Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to deal with the argument and provide his own, not simply have a discussion.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
tychosonicmasterharrison30Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I could see con's sources, Pro had none. But Pro had a Decent Case and Con lost me with his translating Rebuttal(Which I thought was abusive and gave the conduct point to pro) All in all A Very Interesting debate to actually sit down a read