The Instigator
Renzzy
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points

The Bible Says Homosexuals Live an Acceptable Lifestyle

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,238 times Debate No: 3589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (22)

 

Renzzy

Con

Given that I tried to accept your previous debate on this subject, and was beaten to it by seconds, I thought I would challenge you to a debate on this topic, being it is one I enjoy debating.

Now to the meat of the subject.

I believe that the Bible has a lot to say about the behavior of homosexuals, and I also blieve that none of what it has to say is said in a positive manner. The Old, as well as the New Testament has a good deal to say against the behavior of homosexuals, however, in this argument I will stick with the Old Testament, and then address the New Testament in later arguments.

LEVITICUS 18:22---
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"

LEVITICUS 20:13---
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

This says in no obscure terms that God detests homosexuality, and that in the Old Testament it was punishable by death. The Old Testament is not credible? Well, Jesus says himself that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

Matthew 5:17---
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

If Jesus did not come to abolish the law, then it must still be credible, don't you think?

One more passage before I await your response...

GENESIS 29:4-11---
"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 (These men are said to be angels in earlier verses) who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

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

The men who were attempting to sodomize Lots guests were struck bling for their attempts, and last I checked, blindness is not a gift that is generally affiliated with good things. Obviously blindness was a punishment to the men for attempting sometghing so vile.

I eagerly await your reply!

Thanks!

Renzzy
notpolicydebategod

Pro

--- "I believe that the Bible has a lot to say about the behavior of homosexuals, and I also blieve that none of what it has to say is said in a positive manner."

+ I'm simply saying that the Bible does not openly condemn homosexuality not that it casts it in a positive light. We cannot assume that today's societal ills are the Bible's as wells because of obscure scriptures. Obscure scriptures justified slavery, suffrage, the Holocaust and more.

--- LEVITICUS 18:22---
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"
LEVITICUS 20:13---
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

+ You've misinterpreted the scripture and are using it to advance the intolerant social agenda against gays. Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many outdated sexual laws. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!) So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

"The Old Testament is not credible?"

+ Nobody said that the Old Testament was not credible. The Old Testament is very credible. However, this scripture is being used and twisted to promote the anti-homosexual agenda.

Matthew 5:17---
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
If Jesus did not come to abolish the law, then it must still be credible, don't you think?"

+ ...Yes...

GENESIS 29:4-11---
"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 (These men are said to be angels in earlier verses) who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." etc etc"

+ This is an orgy before marriage! This is homosexual abuse! This is not homosexuality. This is a wild sex orgy without marriage, which the Bible does condemn. But not pure homosexuality. Sodom and Gamora was destroyed because of arrogance not because they were gay.Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom. Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."
Think about this...if God destroyed Sodom and Gamora because they were homosexual, then what about the plenty of heterosexuals there???

--- My point--- It has been scientifically determined that homosexuality has several pre natal and post natal influences to contribute to it. Your sexuality can not be determined by yuo. You can control your actions and not participate in homosexual actions but you cannot determine your own sexuality. The American Psychological Association website reads:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

--- Why would God condemn his own children in the way that he made them? I am a Bisexual American and I did nothing wrong but be born this way. I doubt that my God condemns the way he created me. Just as much as I doubt that he condemns any person for being Asian or tall.

I eagerly await your reply!

Thanks!

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 1
Renzzy

Con

"You've misinterpreted the scripture and are using it to advance the intolerant social agenda against gays. Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many outdated sexual laws."

Not exactly. I believe the folly is not mine for accepting these scriptures as valid, but yours for denying their credibility.

2 Tim. 3:16---
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

Yes, this does in fact include the Leviticus, and the rest of the Old Testament for that matter. But wait... Does this mean we can't play football anymore? I mean, after all it is MY favorite sport... Of course we can play football. Yes, the Bible does outlaw playing with pig skin, but laws of this type are no longer needed today.

Wait a minute...

I just said that "all scripture is...useful...", but now im saying some of it is outdated? Yes, but only when GOD HIMSELF makes it outdated. Actions such as playing with a pig skin, or touching a woman on her period would make you unclean back in the days of the Old Testament. There were also ritual washings and sprinklings of holy objects in the Tabernacle, in order to make them CLEAN. When people did such thinds as play with pig skin or touch a woman on her period, they had to undergo a cleansing process. After so long of doing suh and such, they would be clean, but THEY HAD TO WORK TO MAKE THEMSELVES CLEAN. When baptism took the place of circumcision, this all changed. The greek word for baptism is "bap-TEEZ-mos", and it means ritual washing, ablution. God designed beptism as a means to offer cleansing. When baptism was instituted, it caused many of the laws in the Old Testament to become outdated simply because "uncleaness" was no longer an issue.

In short, baptism voided laws concerning "uncleaness". The Bible has nothing to say redeeming homosexuality after condemning it in such a way, however.

Take for example these scriptures out of the NEW TESTAMENT.

1 TIM. 1:9-10---
"...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and muderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"

Note that Sodomites in particular make the list of lawless and insubordinate.

Jude 7---
"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire."

You say that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for their homosexual behavior? This verse accuses them of seeking after STRANGE flesh. Strange meaning not what God designed them to seek after. Here, I like this next verse.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10---
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

This verse say PLAINLY that sodomites and homosexuals WILL NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Thats pretty strong language there. Note that the verse also includes adulterers, implying that the unfaithful in marraige will not enter. If God considered homosexuality a legitimate marraige, then they also would be covered in the term "adulterer". Homosexuals are not Biblically supported though, and the sin is quite severe. Not only does the Bible condemn homosexuality, but to back that up, you can look through the WHOLE Bible and never find one verse supporting it.

As for your arguments about sexual orientation being a choice or not, I have little to say. I believe that people are born with a sexual orientation for whatever reason, and I believe that because of the sinfulness of man and the totally depraved state of the world, some are born with the sinful lust for, as the Bible puts it, strange flesh. There are however many cases in which Christians have overcome the sin of homosexuality with help from God, and fellow Christians. Homosexuality is not irreversable.

Another point I would like to make concerns your comment "Why would God condemn his own children in the way that he made them? I am a Bisexual American and I did nothing wrong but be born this way. I doubt that my God condemns the way he created me."

God does not make people homosexual. How could He? He condemns it so vehemently in the Bible and says that people involved in such a sin do not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is because we, by sinning in the garden, brought sin into the world. Sin tarnishes everything. We see signs of this in everyday life. It is our own fault that things like homosexuality are part of this world.

If you could, please support your next argument scripurally.

Thanks!

Renzzy
notpolicydebategod

Pro

---"the folly is not mine for accepting these scriptures as valid, but yours for denying their credibility."

+ I do not deny the Bible's credibility but rather the interpretation. The book has been interpreted to justify slavery, suffrage and the Holocaust. To not try to correctly interpret the Bible is simply irresponsible.

--- "Yes, this does in fact include the Leviticus, and the rest of the Old Testament for that matter. But wait... Does this mean we can't play football anymore? I mean, after all it is MY favorite sport... Of course we can play football. Yes, the Bible does outlaw playing with pig skin, but laws of this type are no longer needed today."

+ But the banning of homosexuality is? WHY!?!? Simply prejudice. That's why. If you can discount certain books of the Bible because they are vague and questionable you can certainly dismiss the six scriptures out of millions that reference homosexuality vaguely if at all really. What about these scriptures?:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Or the Leviticus Bible code that bans tatoos, football, and round haircuts? That same code INTENDED FOR ISRAESLI PRIESTS is used to condemn homosexuality. Is that fair? Obviously not.

--- "In short, baptism voided laws concerning "uncleaness". The Bible has nothing to say redeeming homosexuality after condemning it in such a way, however."

+ So if a person gets baptized they are allowed to break the rules of the Bible? Except for a homosexual? This is simply prejudice. Not debate.

--- 1 TIM. 1:9-10---
"...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers..."

+ A Sodomite is not a gay person!!! It is a person from the city of Sodom! They were homosexual and heterosexual alike. However, they were destroyed because of their arrogance. Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

--- "You say that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for their homosexual behavior? This verse accuses them of seeking after STRANGE flesh."

+ Strange flesh more than likely means animal flesh. The human body is not strange flesh to another human regardless of sex.

--- 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10---
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

+ There is no word for homosexual in Greek or Hebrew. So the Bible cannot say this. And a Sodomite is not synonous with a homosexual rather a person who lives in the city of Sodom. This is the translation error of 1958 Bible translator.

--- Note that the verse also includes adulterers, implying that the unfaithful in marraige will not enter. If God considered homosexuality a legitimate marraige, then they also would be covered in the term "adulterer".

+ Gay marriages are just as loyal adn faithful as heterosexual marriage. How dare you imply that a gay marriage is a marriage involving adultery.

--- "you can look through the WHOLE Bible and never find one verse supporting it."

+ I never said that the Bible supports homosexuality. I said that the Bible does not condemmn homosexuality. Very different. the Bible, however, never says thou shalt help old ladies cross the street. Although, I'm fairly sure it is not condemned.

--- 'I will not debate the naturality.'

+ The American Psychological Association and every respectable scientist will concur that homosexuality is natural and not changable.

--- There are however many cases in which Christians have overcome the sin of homosexuality with help from God, and fellow Christians. Homosexuality is not irreversable.

+ Homosexuality IS irreversible. There are cases where people claimed that homosexuality was reversed but these have typically been disproven. They are usually biased and the person has been pressured. The American Psychological Association states clearly that these practices are not scientifically proven. There are people who claim the contrary but they are typically proven false. I have NEVER seen a case of actual homosexuality reversal. And neither have you.

--- God does not make people homosexual.

+ Science proves otherwise. I can't give you any source better than proven science.

--- He condemns it so vehemently in the Bible.

+ No. He does not. As I have proven.

--- It is our own fault that things like homosexuality are part of this world.

+ Wow.
And I guess its our own fault that Asians and tall people are in this world as well...

--- If you could, please support your next argument scrip[t]urally.

+ I've used this list before and I shall use it again:

There are six scriptures that condemn homosexuality in the Bible.
= (1) GENESIS 2:21-25 = Adam and Eve, not Steve. Adam and Eve is a tale for all people. Adam and Eve had to have excluded other peoples too. Are they immoral and unnatural? No. They are not. Adam and Eve are for all of us.
= (2) GENESIS 19:1-14 = Sodom and Gamora was not destroyed because of homosexuality. There were heterosexuals there. They were destroyed for arrogance as Ezekiel 16:48-49 says.
= (3) LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13 = This was a holy code for Israeli priests not for the average person. A holiness code is for a certain people at a certain time. It also includes tatoo bands and round haircuts.
= (4) ROMANS 1:26-27 = These priests were abandoned for reasons other than homosexuality.
= (5) (6) 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10 = Says homosexuality is abomination but there is no word for gay in Greek or Hebrew. It is a huge translation error.

This is a great source for further reading: soulforce.org (Homosexual Reverend Mel White)
Debate Round No. 2
Renzzy

Con

"I do not deny the Bible's credibility but rather the interpretation. The book has been interpreted to justify slavery, suffrage and the Holocaust. To not try to correctly interpret the Bible is simply irresponsible."

Interpretation? I read the Bible literally. I, being a Calvinist, understand that there are parts of the Bible in which Jesus speaks in parables, and the papables are not to be taken completely literally, but as for doctrine, it should. If God allowed room for different interpritations He would have to be partial, because everyone would be right; its just a matter of how you interprate the Bible. As for slavery, I don't think the Bible supports or condemns it. I know that Bible commands slaves to obey their masters, but other then that, the Bible does not have much to say without us going into a completely different debate. As for suffrage...so what? So what if people think the Bible supports the right to vote? They could be wrong, but I really dont think God is going to condemn people for think He does or doesn't support voting. The Holocaust? If people think theBible supports the holocaust they are sadly mistaken. I would like very much to know where they find these scriptures, because I would HAPPILY counter them. On occasion in the Old Testament God commanded the Israelites to go destroy this nation or that people, but for one, God is God, and can do what He wants, second, God told the Isaelites to kill CERTAIN people. God did not command Hitler to kill JEWS.

I agree, people should try to correctly interprate scripture.

"But the banning of homosexuality is[still a sin]? WHY!?!? Simply prejudice. That's why. If you can discount certain books of the Bible because they are vague and questionable you can certainly dismiss the six scriptures out of millions that reference homosexuality vaguely if at all really."

Are you saying God is prejudiced? I say homosexuality is a sin because God does. I never said you can discount books of the Bible, but only certain passages. The Covonent of Works was still in affect at the time that playing with pig skin, so peoples actions were very important. After the Covenant of Grace was instituted things changed. Things that used to people unclean were now clean, such as eating certain animals. God directly gives Peter a vision in which God himself declares that no animals are unclean from that point on. Why? Because once unclean, one had to be ritually washed. After Jesus died on the cross and washed us in His blood, we then had the ultimate cleansing. Baptism is a symbol of this. The cleansing of the blood of Christwas and is so powerful and so thorough that we can no longer be made unclean from things like pig skin and mixed cloth. Homosexuality is NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. Just as sins like adultry are not included in this. Things like playing with pig skin are not addressed in the New Testament. Things like homosexuality and adultry are. Matters such as these are addressed very seriously.

Im not quite understanding how the verses that you quoted have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality. Every law stated in those verses is now no longer in effect, due to theblood of Christ (symbolized by baptism). Besides, these are between men AND women, not between men OR between women.

"That same code INTENDED FOR ISRAESLI PRIESTS is used to condemn homosexuality."

Intended for Israeli Priests? Priests only you mean? I don't think so. What about the verse you quoted where it says a womans hand must be cut off if she touches the genitals of another man? Last I checked, women could not be priests. This goes to show that these laws were intended for the general public. Some were intended for just Priests, but most for the general public.

"So if a person gets baptized they are allowed to break the rules of the Bible? Except for a homosexual? This is simply prejudice."

I have already addressed this. Some laws were abolished, some were not. Sins like homosexuality and adultry were not. Once again, you are accusing God of being prejudiced.

"A Sodomite is not a gay person!!! It is a person from the city of Sodom!"

Ummm.......uh......I feel very akward right now....do you know what sodmy is??? Well...ok, I guess I'll give you the dictionary definition.

Ooook, here goes....

From the New Lexicon Websters Dictionary...Ahem...
"Sodomite---a person who practices sodomy."
Lets go to sodomy then...
"Sodomy---sexual intercourse between two males, between members of the same sex, or with animals, or unnatural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."

Now that we have gone into graphic detail, I think you see my point. When God condemns sodomy, He comdemns all of the above. No, not just sodomy with animals, but also between men and men, or between women and women. If God intended to say it was just refering to animals, He would say "sodomy with animals." He says sodomy. Therefore we can conclude that sodomy is a sin in Gods eyes.

"Strange flesh more than likely means animal flesh. The human body is not strange flesh to another human regardless of sex."

Now that we have an understanding of what sodomy is, I think we can agree that God was refering to men seeking sex with men.

"There is no word for homosexual in Greek or Hebrew. So the Bible cannot say this. And a Sodomite is not synonous with a homosexual rather a person who lives in the city of Sodom. This is the translation error of 1958 Bible translator."

I don't think you can speak condecendingly of the translation "homosexual" in the Bible. After all, neither you or I are scholars in hebrew or greek, so neither of us can say one way or the other. I personally am content letting the scholars in the lanuage make those decisions to some extent. In this case, I don't think you're in a postion to day anything about the translation. In referance to sodomite not being "synonous" with homosexual, you and I both know NOW that it is. Translational error? My Bible was published in 1990 and says homosexual...not sure what you getting at.

"Gay marriages are just as loyal adn faithful as heterosexual marriage. How dare you imply that a gay marriage is a marriage involving adultery."

They mat be loyal and faithful, but that does not mean they are right. I never said that they involved adultry, but that homosexuality is a sin COMPARABLE to adultry.

" I never said that the Bible supports homosexuality. I said that the Bible does not condemmn homosexuality. Very different."

Ok, but it DEFINATELY does condemn it. The verse I quoted earlier says it all; 1 Corithians 6:9.

"The American Psychological Association and every respectable scientist will concur that homosexuality is natural and not changable."

(http://www.family.org...) Read that, and you will see otherwise. People CAN change their sexuality, it just takes work. A LOT of work. (http://www.family.org...) This article might give you something to think about as well.

"Homosexuality IS irreversible... I have NEVER seen a case of actual homosexuality reversal. And neither have you."

Bold words, given the fact that I just gave you my proof. I have also given you scripural referances where God comdemns it, and God also says that He will not let us be temted beyond what we can bear, and that He will provide a way out of temptation. God Himselfe says homosexuality is reversable.

When I give you Biblical defense, all you say is science has proven...bla bla. Science had also proven that sponteneous generation was real. It was even considered a law. That was proven wrong. Science changes, scripture does not. I rely on scriture for these matters.

"Science proves otherwise."

Science is not reliable.

"No. He does not. As I have proven."

I have proven otherwise.

I have run out of space, so I will contine in the comment section.
notpolicydebategod

Pro

"I do not deny the Bible's credibility but rather the interpretation. The book has been interpreted to justify slavery, suffrage and the Holocaust. To not try to correctly interpret the Bible is simply irresponsible."

--- "Interpretation? I read the Bible literally...I agree, people should try to correctly interprate scripture."

+ Personally, I do not believe that any person can read the Bible literally. It's all up for interpretation and even those interpretations can be incorrect.

--- "you can discount...only certain passages."

+ I do not believe this. But if you do then why are the few homosexual related scriptures counted?

--- Homosexuality is NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. Just as sins like adultry are not included in this. Things like playing with pig skin are not addressed in the New Testament. Things like homosexuality and adultry are. Matters such as these are addressed very seriously.

+ I've explained that the 6 supposedly gay related Bible scriptures do not condemn homosexuality.

--- Every law stated in those verses is now no longer in effect, due to theblood of Christ (symbolized by baptism).

+ The laws included in your code are homosexuality supposedly but the others are excluded. If the others are discounted, then so is homosexuality.

"That same code INTENDED FOR ISRAESLI PRIESTS is used to condemn homosexuality."

Intended for Israeli Priests? Priests only you mean? I don't think so. What about the verse you quoted where it says a womans hand must be cut off if she touches the genitals of another man? Last I checked, women could not be priests.

+ This is in Deuteronomy. You're spinning the Bible for your benefit. That's morally repugnant.

--- "Sodomite---a person who practices sodomy."
Lets go to sodomy then...

+ This is where you're interpreting the Bible literally. The word sodomite when this was written involved a person who lived in the city of Sodom. The word Sodomite and Sodomy comes from the ancient city because of the evolution of the English. I can see how you got that confused, however. The Sodomites were not destroyed because they were homosexual.
+ Also, the scripture 1 Corinthians 6:9 uses the Greek word "arsenokoitai", which no person today understands. It has been translated into Sodomite, which modernly would mean someone who engages in sodomy. http://www.soulforce.org...

--- Now that we have gone into graphic detail, I think you see my point. When God condemns sodomy, He comdemns all of the above.

+ God does not condemn sodomy in Corinthians 6:9. That is a skewed translation.

--- He would say "sodomy with animals."

+ ...Because the Bible is so clear...

--- Now that we have an understanding of what sodomy is, I think we can agree that God was refering to men seeking sex with men.

+ It was a bad translation. Please look at my source above.

--- I don't think you can speak condecendingly of the translation "homosexual" in the Bible. After all, neither you or I are scholars in hebrew or greek, so neither of us can say one way or the other.
+ Here is a Hebrew translator: http://www.dictionary.co.il...
A Greek translator: http://www.kypros.org...
The Bible is full of mistranslations. The Bible translators are fallible.

--- My Bible was published in 1990 and says homosexual...not sure what you getting at.

+ The NIV version says homosexual. The newer the translation the more skewed it will be. King James Version. Corinthians 6:9: 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,

+ I read your source list and they are all not credible. Richard Isay is the main source for the article. He says that he started to have heterosexual desires after being homosexual. He could very well be bisexual or lying. He has no scientific proof or basis whatsoever. The next source wrote about "The AIDS Epidemic". Completely irrelevant. The statements being made are describing bisexuality is far more popular than homosexuality. Your source is a biased source. Mine is scientific. And thousands other back it up. The vast majority of homosexuality reversal cases are meer psychologicasl pressure cases. People are being forced back into the closet.

"Homosexuality IS irreversible... I have NEVER seen a case of actual homosexuality reversal. And neither have you."

--- That was proven wrong. Science changes, scripture does not.

+ Science is proven. Theory changes. Scripture's interpretation changes. Not the text.

--- Science is not reliable.

+ What better source can I give you?

Please finish the debate here. There is a word limit for a reason. So judging will be reasonable.

---------------You have dropped all of your scriptures except Corinthians 6:9. You realized that the other 5 scriptures are not condemning homosexuality. You are hanging on to Corinthians for dear life. But Corinthians 6:9 was a translation error. There is no word for homosexual in Greek or Hebrew. Here is a Hebrew translator: http://www.dictionary.co.il...
and a Greek translator: http://www.kypros.org...
And the word Sodomite meant a person who lived in the city of Sodom, which was destroyed for arrogance in the Bible times. English evolution adopted the city to mean sodomy and its practicers.
Also, the word Sodomite was not accurately translated. It uses the Greek word "arsenokoitai", which no person today understands. Corinthians 6:9 was a mistranslation, which is not at all uncommon.

Thank you for reading.

Even if I don't win I hope that I've educated some people about the truth on the Bible's stance on homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
So let's say homosexuality is inborn. The Catholic church says homosexuality itself is not a sin, but the act of the sex is the sin! So if you're born homosexual, is the Catholic church saying God made a mistake? I still think it's amazing to me how someone (unless they are gay) would know if it's a choice? Wouldn't you have to be gay yourself to be able to say that, otherwise, how would you know?
Posted by telno 9 years ago
telno
Shall we make a full list of all the things the "Bible" says are wrong, but people do anyway? It's an ancient book that has little relevance to today's world. We no longer have slaves, and we know it's not right to treat women as they do in the bible, and we still have a long way to go towards treating each other better.

Judging others is not a value in the bible either, or pretending that you somehow have moral superiority and better skills at interpreting "god's word".

Given all the suffering in the world, I can think of hundreds of debates more worthy of a good Christian's time. I'm about as concerned over what my neighbors do in bed as I am whether they eat pork or not.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
LeftWingMoron: Thank you. My main goal in this debate was to show people that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Renzzy,

First, don't worry, I voted for you. I liked your argumentation better, and think your position is overall correct. However, the challenge that could've been better played by Pro was the explaining of the cultural bias/other problems in the translations. If he had argued this better, it was a Pro, but you did well in arguing it so I voted Con.

As for actual content,

I said I spoke to my Pastor and my Theology professor (both of whom can read and understand Greek and Hebrew) who came to the same consensus. Learned men, who have more qualifications in judging religious text than any of us - myself included - come to this conclusion.

However, I realize that you don't know my Pastor or Professor. This is why I gave several websites explaining the misconception of malakoi and arsenokoitai, where they originated, where else they were used (and what context), and how they came to be wrongly translated.

And again, I'm just letting you know the conclusions of learned men seeking the truth of G-d. You can take it as you will.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
publicforum,

I would just like to know... Have you ever taken a grekk or hebrew course in any way shape or form??? Generally when people take information off of websites like you have they tend to miss a lot of material. If you have not, then please stop making claims you cannot back, because I too have taken greek courses, and translate it to mean "homosexual... NOT male prostetute.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
The entire purpose of the entire OT is to show how a legalistic set of rules is impossible to govern humanity. Not one man could follow all of the laws of the OT, nor did any man.

That was why Jesus' mentality of love, compassion, and mercy, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, was so important and critical to history - it provided an achievable bridge between G-d and man, whereas before there had been none.

Matthew 27:51
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

This veil was used to keep the general public away from the inside of the temple - G-d's area. When Jesus came, G-d rent the block between Him and man, literally (Crucifixion) and metaphorically (The temple curtain).

What this means is that the legalistic rules view of the OT is not relevant to us as Christians. For this same reason, we do not go and murder those who 'curse their father and mother (Leviticus 20:9)

9 "Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life.

or hunt down and stab all adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)

10 "If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."

Nor do Christians keep Kosher, and we are also allowed to cut the hair around our bangs.

We disregard the harsh and impossible legalistic view of salvation of the OT, to favor one of grace and mercy, and of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Not by rules or works are we saved, but by Faith.

So, we disregard a large portion of the laws of the OT, because they are archaic, and outdated in light of the NT.

Everyone clear?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
@Renzzy:

You're right. I forgot that set of verses. I put the Leviticus ones first because of how severe they are.

@Solo:

I'll explain the easily discarded thing in a minute. Yes, you're right that "malakoi" may have multiple interpretations, but the common consensus among scholars is that, in this context, it was meant to mean sexual perversions of a prostetutional sort.

I agree that the Bible does view homosexuality - in general - as a sin, but I am strong in my understanding of this phrase to mean prostetute.

I have spoken to my Theology professor (class at my community college, I'm only in H.S.) and my pastor as well (Who has a doctorate in Christian Theology and Apologetics) and they agree with this view.

http://fogarty.org...

Here's an explanation of culture bias within the translations. It explains where you view mistranslations, and what they really mean.

Its not arrogant, its merely the scholarly consensus. You can disagree, I just happen to find overwhelming evidence supporting my position.

@Ref2

If you read the website which I posted, it explains how, contexutually, these words do not generally refer to homosexuals. View these words in the context of their use in I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-10

http://www.opendoorcenter.com...

This further explains the New Testament View of Homosexuals. Check out the title "MYTH #4: Not just the Old Testament, but the New Testament also condemns homosexuality."

I hope this helped you understand the meaning of the words.

PFG

For space, I'm gonna make a new comment with the "easily discarded".
Posted by Ref2thecore 9 years ago
Ref2thecore
PublicForumG-d:

Thank you for informing me of my mistake. i didnt realize i didnt know how to interprit a lexicon. i have taken greek and basic reading courses and know how to interprit CONTEXT. I can say the word gay and mean two differant things. either happy OR homosexual, and it is the same way here with both of these words. now dont you think it makes sense looking at ALL of the definitions of BOTH words together, that this is the most likely, if not only possible meaning for the usage of these words in this verse. Sure, maybe malakoi refers to a male prostitue in some instances (which i never saw in ANY of my lexicons, by the way) arsenokoitai does not mean anywhere near that, so you have to take into account meaning AND context. By looking at both words together, the translation that makes the most sense is "homosexuality". Oh and i did read this myself out of my greek New Testament..i didnt google this! And i would also like to know what you mean about being able to "easily discard" the verses in Leviticus?! Please, dont argue about sombody else's ignorance of a topic if you are not going to explore all aspects of it yourself!!

Thankyou!!

Ref2thecore
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
So, the Leviticus verses can be "easily discarded?" Interesting. Actually, "malakoi" can mean anything from "pervert" to . It's "pervert" in the RSV and "homosexuals" in the NASB. It's safe to say that this is a complex word and you, PublicForum, are being arrogant. There is no sure translation. These verses alone would be shaky ground for Biblical evidence against homosexuality. However, coupled with the verses in Leviticus, which cannot be easily discarded, and the case is airtight.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
In many cases, yes, it is used that way, but not all. I do not believe it is used that way in this passage.

The biggest barrier was Leviticus? wha about Romans 1:26-27? That put God's thoughts on homosexuality in plain terms too.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 9 years ago
matthewleebrown14
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by midgetman2 9 years ago
midgetman2
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tavadon 9 years ago
Tavadon
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by livi 9 years ago
livi
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pitteas 9 years ago
pitteas
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by riclanda 9 years ago
riclanda
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by telno 9 years ago
telno
RenzzynotpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03