The Instigator
Renzzy
Pro (for)
Winning
74 Points
The Contender
askbob
Con (against)
Losing
63 Points

The Bible Says Plainly that Homosexuality is a Sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 21 votes the winner is...
Renzzy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,933 times Debate No: 6248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (120)
Votes (21)

 

Renzzy

Pro

On reading my profile, one would observe that I have debated this topic several times in the past. I enjoy debating this topic mainly because I feel very strongly that homosexuality is a plague to society, that it is one of the cancers that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and that it can do nothing good for this country save aid in its destruction.

It pains me enough to see society accepting this minority as perfectly normal, but what most baffles me is that and increasingly large number of people claiming the name "Christian" also openly support homosexuality. Frankly this appals me. The Bible could not be more plain in stating its condemning laws concerning homosexuality, and I am more than willing to prove it.

Remember, this debate is strictly scriptural. I am not, and will not debate what will be accepted according to the culture, or what should be accepted according to the laws of the land. I am debating whether or not the God, in the Bible, condemns homosexuality as a sin.

I will ask no forgiveness for the way I speak concerning homosexuality. I am commanded to love all people, and have no problem loving homosexuals as individuals created in the image of God, but I despise the sin of homosexuality, and in no way will I ever look on it lightly. Thus, in speaking sharply against homosexuality I speak only against the sin.

Thanks!

Renzzy
askbob

Con

When someone kills another human being, who determines it to be a sin.

For example: If a soldier defends his country and kills other men, is this a sin?
If a man kills another man for no reason is this a sin?
What about if a father kills a crazy man to defend his children?
What about the death penalty, do the people killing the offender also committ a sin?

The bible may clearly state that killing is a sin, however are all these instances sins? Do all soldiers go to hell?

It saddens me that throughout the history of Christianity, fellow christians have been attempting to play the role of God with their condemnations of others actions. While I'm sure my opponent can display very accurate quotations suggesting that homosexuality is a sin, I ask her to remember the parable of Jesus and the whore. A local whore was about to be stoned by a group of villagers. Jesus intervened saying "Let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone" Obviously there is only one person who has not sinned, and only one judge up in heaven.

Some Christians seem to be under the delusional notion that it is there job to judge the living and the dead. Unfortunately there is no human except Jesus who has the power and responsibility to declare an action a sin. Things you nor I can possibly comprehend go into judging whether an act is a sin. Personally I think it is rather ridiculous that we as humans feel that we can judge whether something is a sin based on the Bible. The Bible wasn't written to be a rule book. If you have the slightest perception that it is such than you are blind. The Bible is a tool left behind so that we may more easily follow God's will in our lives. It is more a personal book for everyone who reads it rather than a list of rules for other christians to condem people with.

Homosexuality cannot be judged to be a sin by anyone other than God at judgement day. Not by Christians who so pompously judge others when they ignore the faults that lay within themselves.

It is for God and God alone to determine sin, not humans.
Debate Round No. 1
Renzzy

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge, and I trust this will be a valuable exchange of ideas.

I like the idea that you brought up. In the case of killing, for instance, there are some exceptions. One main obstacle lies in the way of this being a valid argument, though, and that is that the sin of homosexuality differs dramatically in nature from the sin of murder. In the Bible there are cases of God commanding people to kill other people, but there is no place where we can find God commanding a person to practice homosexuality.

"It saddens me that throughout the history of Christianity, fellow Christians have been attempting to play the role of God with their condemnations of others actions."

I in no way attempt to play God, but rather condemn only that which God has condemned in His Holy Word.

"...I ask [him] to remember the parable of Jesus and the whore."

You are quite correct in saying that God is the only and final judge. This I will not dispute. You forget, however, that if we see a brother in sin, we are to correct (not judge) him in good faith, using the Bible as our point of reference.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." --Matthew 18:15-17

It is plain from these scriptures that we are not to simply watch a brother commit sin, but are to confront and correct him to walk in the ways of righteousness.

I would like to take this time to address what you said concerning the Bible not being a rule book.

Upon hearing this it was my turn to be saddened. I am sorry to hear that you take such a light view of scripture. In fact, we can look to scripture itself and see a contradiction to your view.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" --2 Timothy 3:16

Not only does this plainly say all scripture is for teaching, but are you saying that the Ten Commandments were simply set up as guidelines and not laws? If the Bible was not written as a rule book, as you claim, then how do we know that any murder is a sin? Of course these are rules! Look, for instance, at Corinthians:

"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. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." --1 Cor. 6:9-11

This verse is no joke. It is not left up to interpretation. This is out of the mouth of God that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Look to Leviticus also, and you will find God VEHEMENTLY condemning sodomites. So vehemently, however, that there is NO QUESTION as to whether or not it is a sin.

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

" '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.'" --Leviticus 20:13

God Condemns homosexuals and sodomites to death!! He does not look lightly upon this sin!

You claim that we are not to try and decide what is sin and what is not sin, but how can you possibly live a Christian life not deciding what sin is? God's word is here to direct us as to what sin is, that we might not fall into it, just as the Psalmist wrote:

"I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not. sin against you." --Psalms 119:11

Having established that, please counter the verses I presented, and show how they do not condemn homosexuality. If you do not, you are not fulfilling your duty as my opponent in this debate, and I will win by default. However, setting aside the debate, I hope you can see how the Bible does in fact show what exactly is sin, and does in fact strictly condemn homosexuality.

Thanks!

Renzzy
askbob

Con

"In the case of killing, for instance, there are some exceptions."

1. My opponent has conceded there are exceptions to what sin is as stated by the Bible.
2. My opponent contends that homosexuality cannot have an exception because God did not order it.

This stands to question a very simple flaw in my opponents reasoning, that God has only ordered things that are written in the Bible. Does my opponent then assume that since it was not written in the Bible, God did not order it? There are exceptions to every sin. Such exceptions exempt humans from even doing so much as guessing at the true will of God. This may be competely out of the question for my opponent, but I stand to let the voters judge: Is it not entirely possible that God created some humans to be homosexual?

Let me continue. The issue of ones sins is a rather personal journey, which I for one believe is to be solely between oneself and God. No other man has business correcting others or determining sin other than God. God may choose to correct others through people, events, etc. however that is God's will and not the will of others.

My opponent then incorrectly states a Bible passage which should have stated:

15"If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your...."
http://www.biblegateway.com...

Notice how the passage says "sins against you". Matthew is not advocating that we correct everyone we perceive to be in error. Our perceptions are not God's perceptions.

Again my opponent fails to make a basic understanding of what the Bible is. It is not a rulebook. It is not a weapon to be quoted to correct and condemn others.

"I am sorry to hear that you take such a light view of scripture. In fact, we can look to scripture itself and see a contradiction to your view."

It really does depend what you view as "light". Anyone who has a deep view of the bible is not someone who is preaching fire and brimstone sermons and singling out others and attempting to use God's word as a weapon to cut them down. The Bible is not your little personal tool to build some up and cast others down as sinners. It is not for you to decide what is a sin. It is God's will to decide. If you indeed did have a deep relationship with God and an advanced knowledge of the scriptures you would have found the understanding that it is for God to decide. And for you to be peaceful, loving, charitable, merciful, forgiving, nonjudgemental, and his humility. Anyone who has taken the slightest amount of effort to truely understand what Jesus was telling us knows this. It is ingrained in all of his parables. His parables of being a good samaritan and helping those that are looked down upon. His rage when farmers did not practice charity. His idea of what a truely rich man is. His humility at washing the woman's feet. His nonjudgemental attitude he has during the local whore.

These are the actions Jesus truely wanted us to learn. Not your self empowerment of choosing who is a sinner and who isn't. So truely it is you who has a decidedly light view of the Bible and not myself. Questioning one's faith and one's understanding of it is a powerful thing that one should do very cautiously and after much understanding of a situation. Be careful.

Timothy 3:16 is implicative of self teaching, recorrection etc. Not that of others.

The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
bullet"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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

Though "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:
If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientation.
Male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB) is restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual prostitutes.

catamites, also described as "boy prostitute." This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt)

pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers).

perverts: a person engaged in some undefined activity that is one of the dozens of sexual perversions. (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.

"Are you saying that the Ten Commandments were simply set up as guidelines and not laws? If the Bible was not written as a rule book, as you claim, then how do we know that any murder is a sin?"

That is precisely what I am saying. You even agreed there are exceptions to things stated as "sin".
Here's the quote: "In the case of killing, for instance, there are some exceptions."

That's precisely my argument, how doe we know that any murder is a sin. The answer is that we do not know that murder is a sin. The person who committed murder knows whether they have sinned or not, and God certainly knows whether it is a sin or not. It is not our job to judge other's sins. We are not God.

Your reference to Leviticus is almost laughable. When Jesus came many of the old laws such as described in Leviticus were rendered null.

Example: Lev: 19:23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.

Lev: 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

God also condemns children who curse at their parents to death!

To conclude, not only does sin have exceptions as my opponent pointed out, but it clearly states in the bible to not judge others. Jesus's teachings clearly indicate that he is the judge and not us. Therefore we as humans cannot (and have absolutely no right) to judge others and determine what a sin is and what a sin isn't. A sin is a wrong done against God. Only the person committing the sin and God know what a sin is and what a sin isn't. The Bible is to be used for a tool for becoming closer with God and determining his plan for our lives. Not to use as a weapon to judge others and determine sin.
Debate Round No. 2
Renzzy

Pro

If you have not already strayed from the topic I intended, you are dancing precariously close to that edge. Your conclusion does not even mention homosexuality or God's condemning it in the Bible. You simply state that I should not judge what are sins and what are not sins. I'm a bit confused. I hope you realize that eighty percent of your arguments bear no weight in the topic at hand, and I have little refutation to do.

This debate is NOT ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT SIN. It is about whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality, whether it is a book of "guidelines" or not. Take it or leave it.

I would like, first of all, to makes sure my opponent does not falsely accuse me of saying that there are exceptions to sins. THERE ARE NONE. I may have made the mistake of sounding like that is what I was saying, but I most certainly did not mean to, and the whole idea of it is ridiculous.

The commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" is condemning all unlawful killing. Any other killing is either capitol punishment or commanded by God Himself, in which case it is not sin at all. I hope we understand eachother now.

The idea that God created some people homosexual is ludicrous. God, in the New and Old Testament says that homosexuality and sodomy are both abominations. God created something He hates? Ludicrous. God said all of His creations were good.

You claim that my verses in Leviticus are "laughable," but I think that in your study of God's "book of guidelines" you have not looked far enough. You claim that they were abolished along with the commands like not trimming your beard and such, but God also condemns idolatry in the Old Testament. Is that, too outdated?

Yes, there are some laws that have ben outdated, like the laws that states if men touch a woman while she is on hear period, he has sinned. Why, though, are these laws abolished and not homosexuality, you might ask. The answer lies in the sacrament of baptism.

Back in the days of the Covenant of Works, there were many things that made people "unclean", such as touching a woman while she is on her period, or wearing cotton polyester blends. However these things were abolished at the institution of baptism. The Greek word for baptism is 'baptidzo' (bap-TEEd-zoh), and its English translation is 'ritual washing'. In the Old Testament, things that made you seriously unclean, such as touching a woman while she is on her period, required a ritual washing or cleansing. Once this cleansing took place, the person was clean again. In the New Testament, when baptism took the place of circumcision, it also abolished the need for ritual cleansing, because the blood of Christ has cleansed us all permanently.

This, however, did not abolish laws against adultery, murder, homosexuality and the like. This is because they are, for one, also condemned in the New Testament, where the convenient or works is in affect, but also because they are sins against you own flesh, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the flesh of others, who are made in the image of God. These sins sis not simple make you unclean, but defiled you completely. Thus the punishment of death for homosexuality, and not trimming the tips of your beard.

I am not saying that homosexuals should be stoned, however, anymore than I am saying people should be stoned for cursing their parents. This punishment was taken with Jesus' death on the cross, and His Grace extended to sinners.

Having said this, my verses in Leviticus still stand and await refutation.

In defense of the passage I quoted in 2 Tim. 3:16, I say you put words in Paul's mouth. You say it is "implicative" of "self-teaching." I am at a loss as to where you are coming up with the "self." It says EXACTLY what it says, nothing more, and nothing less. All scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. If there is any "implication," it implies ALL men, not only one's self.

Having said this, my argument from 2 Timothy still stands and awaits refutation.

In defense of Matthew 18:15-17, I have little to say. You imply that if my brother sins against me, he is not sinning against God as well? My friend, please look to the Bible for counters to these, your petty and fragile arguments.

Matthew 25:40---
"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

That should settle the dispute, and yet another of my arguments stands and awaits refutation.

My last verse to be defended is 1 Cor. 6:9-11. You, along with every other Christian pleading for "tolerance" of homosexuality claim that "homosexual," and "sodomite" are translational errors. Well I, as a student with two years of Koine Greek under my belt, and having the support of two Greek scholars backing me, that is my Pastor and my Greek teacher, am here to tell you that this is no mistranslation.

The word used in the text is "Malakoi," which is the nominative form of the word "Malakos." The three possible definitions for this word are:
1) Soft
2) Fancy, Luxurious
3) Homosexual Pervert

I choose number three. Obviously neither of the other two make sense, and that leaves us with but one choice: Homosexual pervert. This is no translational error, and if you have contentions, take it up with the dictionary in the back of the Greek New Testament laying in my lap.

The other word is "Arsenokoitais," pronounced "ar-sen-AHK-oi-tais." There is one definition for the in the lexicon that I looked in, that is, my Greek teacher's lexicon. and that is:
1) A Male Who has Sexual Relations with a Male.

Once again, if you have any contention please feel free to attack my teacher's lexicon. I assure you it will not change it's definition. This verse as well now stands and awaits refutation.

"To conclude, not only does sin have exceptions as my opponent pointed out, but it clearly states in the bible to not judge others. Jesus's teachings clearly indicate that he is the judge and not us. Therefore we as humans cannot (and have absolutely no right) to judge others and determine what a sin is and what a sin isn't. A sin is a wrong done against God. Only the person committing the sin and God know what a sin is and what a sin isn't. The Bible is to be used for a tool for becoming closer with God and determining his plan for our lives. Not to use as a weapon to judge others and determine sin."

It's nice that you feel this way, but next time let's try to conclude something relevant to the debate at hand. It is now your job to show why my arguments are wrong, and how, in your opinion, the Bible permits homosexuality. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Thanks for the interesting debate!

Renzzy
askbob

Con

My opponents clear resolution was shown to be: "The Bible Says Plainly that Homosexuality is a Sin"
"I am debating whether or not the God, in the Bible, condemns homosexuality as a sin."

However my opponent states that it is I who have "strayed from the topic he intended"

He further goes onto state: "This debate is NOT ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT SIN."

My opponent seems to confuse me. He states in his resolution that the Bible says plainly that homosexuality is a
>>>>Sin<<<<<

But then he goes onto say this debate is >>NOT<< ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT A SIN"

In his resolution he further states that he is debating about whether or not the Bible condems homosexuality as a >>>SIN<<<

If this is indeed my opponents viewpoint then he either hasn't read my arguments clearly, or is simply attempting to confuse the voters of this debate and attempting to make it seem as if I have twisted his words so as to achieve an easy victory.

So as there will be no confusion either on part of my opponent or the voters in this debate I think it is quite clear what my opponent's original intent of the debate was. Attempting to change the meaning of the debate in the last argument is in my opinion bad form. My opponent says "he may have made the mistake of sounding like that". However I truely do not believe it was a mistake at all. The word sin wasn't merely thrown in there haphazardly. The word sin was not only present in the topic of the debate but was clear in my opponents resolution.

Also in his second round he seemed to have absolutely no problem with the way the debate was taken. Instead he openly embraced it. So I'm afraid this attempt to sway the meaning of this debate isn't a topic that I would have taken.

"The commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" is condemning all unlawful killing. Any other killing is either capitol punishment or commanded by God Himself, in which case it is not sin at all. I hope we understand each other now."

I'm afraid I understand you less. Laws made by humans? So if it was law to kill all Christians, then in your opinion this would not be a sin? I'm sorry but your argument lack substance.

"The idea that God created some people homosexual is ludicrous. God, in the New and Old Testament says that homosexuality and sodomy are both abominations. God created something He hates? Ludicrous. God said all of His creations were good."

Sodomy is the inequivalent of homosexuality. Sodomy is another word for rapists. Because that is the instance God was condemning. RAPE.

I don't see Jesus stating that he hates Homosexuality anywhere in the new testament. You have failed to provide any evidence of this. Additionally Old testament laws are only valid if reinforced by Jesus, which they have not been.

Jesus clearly reinforced his hatred of idolatry in the new testament. In Mathew Chapter 4:

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
9and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."
10Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"
11Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him.

My opponents rather backward attempt at using baptism to render an argument is ridiculous. My opponent is simply grasping at straws as he offers no logic nor scriptual proof to back himself. The only laws in the old testament that are enforced are ones Jesus has enforced.

Your verses in Leviticus have been clearly refuted. Attempting to back them after their refutation is genuinely not a wise thing. You have conceded: "Yes, there are some laws that have been outdated, like the laws that states if men touch a woman while she is on hear period, he has sinned."

You then go onto state that homosexuality is not one of them because: "they are sins against you own flesh" It makes absolutely no sense to me about how touching a woman with her period is not a sin against your own flesh. How does this differ from homosexuality? It doesn't. Only laws that were re-enforced by JESUS are applicable. Obviously as you have failed to offer any evidence showing such, I'm forced to believe you concede that Jesus did not strike down homosexuality.

"Having said this, my argument from 2 Timothy still stands and awaits refutation."

Stating that it is I who put words in Paul's mouth is opinionated, has no factual backing, whereas the opposite holds true. It is you who put words in Pauls mouth by taking terms translated over and over and using them for your own benefit and justification in a debate. This scripture has clearly been refuted, you gain nothing by dwelling on it.

In defense of Matthew 18:15-17, you purposefully misquoted a bible verse for your own benefit. Clearly matthew is only asking for you to correct someone if they sin against YOU. Obviously homosexuals if they are sinning (which is a matter between God and themselves) it is not for you to correct them, as they are not sinning against you. The most fragile and petty thing I think one can do is purposefully misquotes the Bible for their own benefit and self righteousness.

Matthew 25:40
"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Again you clearly have no understanding of the Bible. As you are again misrepresenting what was said to benefit your false notions. This clearly means that by turning away the poor, the sick, the homeless (the least of my brothers) and not helping them you are doing an ill against God. The same goes with helping them.

Let me post the whole of the scripture so that the voters can clearly understand what you have misrepresented:

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.'

In your reference to your supposed "Greek superiority" do you think that you are the only one who has a comprehension of the greek language? Millions do, and millions have been attempting to determine what paul meant. Additionally lets even assume paul had meant this. Did Jesus say or affirm this? No.

In fact Paul was actually against the concept of marriage and sex at all. He frequently denotes that marriage should only be used as a last resort in his writings.

To leave my opponent who obviously is set in using the Bible as a weapons, let me impart some wisdom:

"I came not to Judge the world but to save the world" John 12:47
"Judge no man" John 8:15
"Avoid Hypocrisy. Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others" Mathew 7: 3-4

As should be obvious in this debate. Sin is only to be judged by God not by man. My opponents lack of understanding about what the Bible is, disqualifies him from judging what the Bible means. My opponent obviously enjoys using his Bible as a weapon and misquoting and misrepresenting pieces of scripture to suit his own judgemental position that clearly has no standing because it goes unenforced by Jesus.
Debate Round No. 3
120 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Before voting tabs.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
holyshit....that's a lot of votebombs.....
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Old Vote-bombing... FTW!!!!
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
...a rather hostile comment to a simple opinion, askbob. I think the attitude you took on was a bit uncalled for. I actually agree with him though. Marriage is when the two leave there parents and become one flesh; becoming one flesh refering to engaging in sexual intercourse. How else would they be considered "one flesh?"

This wouls explain the reason God condemns bcoming one flesh with prostitutes, for in all reality e have basically married them. After sex, the two are considered married in God's eyes.

So you are right in saying that marriage is the union of two people (ONE man and ONE woman) and God. You misunderstand the meaning of union, though. It does not mean wedding ceremony, it means sex. Not all that crazy after all is it?
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
So in you're most profound logic, Gay's can't have sex?

Seriously what planet are you from.

Google the word "prostate" you ignorant fool.

Additionally to claim that the Biblical version of marriage is just sex is completely wrong and misguided.

Marriage is a union of 2 people and God. It's not just blind sex. It involves deep emotional love.

Sorry you lose.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Many people believe that the bible teaches 'no sex before marriage' but it actually teaches something infinitely more profound.. that sex IS marriage.
The vows/ceremony etc came after the act. ( something we honour even now in that a marriage is not complete without 'consecration' )
The word 'marriage' refers to many different things, for example the 'coupling' mechanism on train carriages.. a nut and bolt are created to 'marry'.
People of the same sex cannot physically 'marry' in this sense.. our body's do not allow it, externally or internally.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
The bible hugger argument, or the God doesn't exist argument?

Sorry, I debate...I don't rant.
Posted by Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
The bible says in Leviticus 18:22: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

It also says: Lev 1:9: He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. (In reference to sacrificing a bull)
Exodus 21:7: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
Lev 25:44: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
Exo 35:2: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Lev 11:10: But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest.
Lev. 19:27: Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Lev. 11:6-8: The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

I'm pretty sure we, as a society, has outgrown these childish "laws of God." So why are we so stuck on condemning homosexuals? Why shouldn't we reinstate slavery, revere men as higher than women, ban football, stone all men with crew cuts, press any who eat shellfish or ham, sacrifice bulls (this one is especially funny, since sacrificing animals has been a thing many Christians condemn Pagans for), and smite all who work on Sundays?
The bible is a ridiculous tome when it comes to rights and laws, and all bible-huggers need to reacquaint themselves with their so-called "God."

Unfortunately, the Con didn't really touch up on this at all in his arguments, so it was not a voti
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
You might want to check out my latest debate R_R for some further insights on Calvinism.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"RR - how could anything be declared evil in Calvinism?
"
Irrationally. But nevertheless it is, since Calvinism is a sect of Christianity, and the bible mentions evil many times. Leading to a problem of evil without the possibility of the "free will" copout, as nonsensical as the copout is.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
RenzzyaskbobTied
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 Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
RenzzyaskbobTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by bmoe11 8 years ago
bmoe11
RenzzyaskbobTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
RenzzyaskbobTied
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 SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
RenzzyaskbobTied
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 zimmsta 8 years ago
zimmsta
RenzzyaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Ref2thecore 8 years ago
Ref2thecore
RenzzyaskbobTied
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 KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
RenzzyaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by Jim92 8 years ago
Jim92
RenzzyaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Grund 8 years ago
Grund
RenzzyaskbobTied
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