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

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
dmbrown has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 104200
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Bitch_Goddess

Pro

I saw earlier that Con believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. I am here to argue against that.

For the first round, I would like Con to state how the Bible goes against homosexuals, as well as provide verses for evidence.

Do you accept, Con?
dmbrown

Con

First of all we should define "condemn".
According to a quick Google search.
1. express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.
2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.

All verses which I will be using are coming from the King James Version of the Bible.

The Bible states in Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination and the penalty is death, as is the case with all sin.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13

I could very well stop here and have proven my point that the Bible DOES condemn homosexuality. But here are still some other supporting verses out of the Bible to show further proof.

The book of Romans states that it is vile, unnatural and unseemly.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompense of their error which was meet." -- Romans 1:26-27

In 1 Timothy it is not lawful.
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" -- 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Paul states in his first letter to the church of Corinth that they do not inherit the Kingdom of God, which means it is sinful.
"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." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

In the book of Matthew, Jesus reaffirms that marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" -- Matthew 19:4-5

Having said all of this, does God still love homosexuals?
The answer is a resounding YES.
It is a sin just like any other sin. I myself am guilty of lying, stealing, drunkenness, lust, coveting, and others. I may not be guilty of homosexuality, but I am a sinner just the same as the homosexual and we are both condemned to death.
But God loved us so much that He sent His only son to die for us and to pay for those sins if we would only confess that we have sinned and accept the free gift of forgiveness that He offers.
Debate Round No. 1
Bitch_Goddess

Pro

I am glad to agree upon using the KJV (King James Version) for this debate.
So I will begin my rebuttal.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
The Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for "a man to lie with a man as with a woman" in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East"so far as ancient texts discussed it"had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the points, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much. Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of "catcher" in such sexual activity. To lie with a man "as with a woman" pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women. Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons"no one was safe. In the Ancient Near East, male-male sex can also have a religious meaning. Sex as religious devotion is an odd concept for most of us, but it was not so for ancients. The Ancient Near East is a dry place. Agriculture there is a critical, but precarious undertaking. Consequently, agriculture attracted a good deal of religious attention in ancient times. Fertility gods were common, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous"that is, both male and female. Devotees believed that by planting one"s seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year. None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act (the "pitcher," so to speak) was acting in the very heterosexual role of a male. A man could dominate another man by buggering him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of the female. That was why it was permitted to rape one"s enemies at the end of a battle, but not to bugger one"s slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. In the second case, you"re just taking advantage. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (again, the "pitcher") is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another, in this case, a man reimagined as part female. So, was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East? Probably. But it is never discussed in the surviving literature. What meaning, then, did the sex acts referred to in Leviticus have? Theoretically, it could have been any of the three: domination, recreation, or cult sex. Most scholars think it was the last of these. This is because of the word used to condemn it: abomination, in Hebrew to"evah. This word is often used in contexts where a religious offense is involved. And this section of Leviticus, known to scholars as the Holiness Code, is all about steering clear of foreign religious and cultural practices. So the Leviticus texts probably forbid engaging in sex with foreign priests"but we cannot be sure. Those texts might forbid the sexual exploitation of male slaves. But we can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. Male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time. A famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean "I love you." It means "I own you." Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean "I love you." To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment.

I might also add, had this been a condemnation of homosexuality, it wouldn't even pertain to today's law that Christians follow. The Old Testament was fulfilled after Jesus died on the cross for our sins. It even states so in Matthew 5.

--

Romans 1:26-2
Romans is taken from Paul's philosophy on unbridled passion. It was pagan idolatry and temple sex rituals among heterosexuals that was the focus of Paul's issue. Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people.

--

1 Timothy 1:9-10
The explanation for this one is completely too long, so I found a site that had the information.
https://www.gaychurch.org...
(And yes, it is biased. However, it does provide evidence for each and every claim)

--

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (usually goes to 11) Is one which I have dealt with so often. Some of the degenerate Bibles used by "evangelicals" name homosexuality, yet the KJV does not, and neither does the original Koine Greek version. The "effeminate" refers (according to St. Clement of Alexandria, who explains the term to us) to men who take excessive care about their appearance, shape, and style their hair, and wear perfume - in other words, all men in the First World. The "abusers of themselves with mankind" was traditionally understood to refer to men who masturbate. It is only in relatively recent times that some have perverted the meaning to make it refer to homosexuals.

--

Matthew 19:4-5
Jesus was answering a question about divorce, not that marriage was between only a man and woman, or that he was condemning homosexuality. This is a verse that MANY tend to overlook to fit the anti-homosexual stance on the Bible. I'm sure your intent wasn't to completely ignore what it began to say but to help further your case. However, like I said, it was based on divorce. It couldn't have possibly made mention of a homosexual relationship because that was not an idea presented to heterosexuals until, like I said, late 1800 AD. So the idea of two men or two women getting married was out of the question.

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

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

--

And I completely agree; of course, God still loves homosexuals. Even if homosexuality was a sin, he would love them. God loves everyone, no matter the sin they commit. It says so in many, many Bible verses.
Everyone sins, therefore everyone falls short of God's glory (according to the Bible).
It's not peoples fault that they sin. The Bible makes it clear that EVERYONE sins, so it would make no sense for God to not love homosexuals the same way he loves everyone else.
Thankfully, homosexuality is not a sin itself. It is love, and should not be treated as a sinful action to be ashamed of.

--

The ball is on your side, Con.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ChrisL 2 days ago
ChrisL
I recognize a lot of Matthew Vines material... Who have you read and have you had the chance of reading Dr Micheal Brown"s work on this subject yet?
Posted by dmbrown 3 months ago
dmbrown
Oh, dang. I didn't realize the response time was so short. I got back on my computer today to check it out and saw that I had forfeited. Sorry about that. Was it set for 24 hours or something?
Posted by dmbrown 3 months ago
dmbrown
Oh, dang. I didn't realize the response time was so short. I got back on my computer today to check it out and saw that I had forfeited. Sorry about that. Was it set for 24 hours or something?
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 3 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
It's very much unfortunate Con decided not to respond. I was looking forward to the debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.