The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The Bible does not exclude homosexuals as acceptable people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 960 times Debate No: 3584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

Many people have quoted the Bible for negative agendas including the Crusades, mass genocides, the Holocaust, slavery and more. Homophobia and heterosexism is concluded in that list. Of course, the Bible speaks against homosexual behaivors in about five places of the millions of scriptures. But it also opposes other things sexually in scriptures that say:
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.
These are spoken against, however, are acceoted in society.

- Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior at all. However, he does speak about love and compassion for each other despite your feelings of the person or their actions. A slightly more critical messgae.

- The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.

- We miss the important messages from God listed repeatedly and continually stressed because of our focus on homosexuality.

- It is not immoral because of the fact that they are incapable of having children. These people are incapable of having children as well and the Bible does not condemn them: couples who are unable to have children, couples who are too old to have children, people who are single.

- The cities of Sodom and Gamora were not destroyed because of their homosexual behavior but rather because "...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." Ezekiel 16:48-49 There were homosexuals and heterosexuals alike in the town.

- Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." However, Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. 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!) This is simply a code for preiests not a code for the general public. Also, the word abomination is not the same as in today. What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, "abominations" (TO'EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive.

- In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

- During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation, that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences, and that it is dangerous and inappropriate to tell a homosexual that he or she could or should attempt to change his or her sexual orientation.

...Sorry for being so disorganized but as are the arguments supporting condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible.

...http://www.soulforce.org......(Homosexual) Reverend Mel White
Paradigm_Lost

Con

I first want to clarify that I'm not here to say whether or not it is good or bad to consider homosexuality a sin. I'm simply here to debate the premise, which is that the Bible doesn't REALLY exclude homosexuals, and as such, my personal beliefs on the matter are irrelevant to the debate.

"JESUS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SAME SEX BEHAVIOR AT ALL... THE JEWISH PROPHETS ARE SILENT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY"

That is true, however, it may very well be that homosexual behavior was more rare than it is now. The quantification of homosexuality is assumed to have remained static throughout the millenia, but it is possible that societal influence has allowed it to flourish, and indeed inflamed it. Case in point: Twenty years ago, virtually all high school kids would have ostracized their homosexual peers. In contemporary times it is often considered in high regard, in which case, homosexuality may very well be propagated through social norms rather than by genes. In any case, it is speculative in either direction at this juncture.

What I mean is that we don't really know, nor do I think we could definitively know, the prevalence of homosexuality in the past. There could have been more in the past, there could have been less. The one's that were homosexuals could have been silent since in most cultures it was considered taboo. And they may have felt threatened with death, which, by the way, was hardly a concoction of Christianity or Judaism. The fact that homosexuality is taboo has been around a long time, and propagated by cultures not influenced or persuaded by Judeo-Christian ethics.

My second premise about Jesus not mentioning homosexuality in the Bible is that omission does not automatically mean its acceptance. He was also silent about bestiality, but if we were to go by your rationale, we should assume that he was actually accepting of it. Regardless, I would agree that Jesus focused on the heart of a matter rather than specifics. For instance, he spoke frequently about sexual sin, as did Paul. They often didn't distinguish between different types of sexual sin.

"IT IS NOT IMMORAL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN."

I don't think this is the reason why it was considered immoral in the first place.

"THE CITIES OF SODOM AND GAMORA WERE NOT DESTROYED BECAUSE OF THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR BUT RATHER BECAUSE... OF THEIR ARROGANT WAYS."

I concur that it was not, at least solely, because of homosexuality. There are a number of theories that have been circulating for any number of years and centuries concerning it. Was it rape that God was particularly opposed to? Was it homosexuality? Or was it inhospitality? Or was it a conglomerate of many things, to include all of them or some of them?

Given the fact that such a code of honor to care for those who are in need is etched in to Middle Eastern custom, there seems to be some relevance to the argument that it is, at least in part, about inhospitality.

"About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it." -Flavius Josephus

But then again, there is another argument that specifically points out that "abuse" is the sin. In other words, they argue that in an epistle, such as Paul's, they say that he is actually condemning homosexual abuse rather than responsible homosexual behavior. While this could be construed as a reasonable interpretation for drinking wine (don't be a drunkard), it hardly applies to other sins listed in 1st Corinthians 6 or 1st Timothy 1.

But lets think about that logically for a minute. Is Paul calling for responsible adultery or responsible prostitution? Is there such a thing as moral theft and swindling? Obviously the argument breaks down. Scripture never condones sex outside of marriage (premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, or otherwise). And going all the way back to the beginning, we see that God created man and woman for the institution of marriage (Gen. 2:24). From that point we see that God has both a "perfect" will and a "permissive" will, one where He prefers you to live in accordance to His will, and the other where He allows you to eat your own mistakes.

Even in the Book of Jude, the author clearly points out what the sins included.

"Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." -Jude 1:7

Whether the verse is condemning one thing or all things, the unambiguous complaint seems to be pertaining chiefly to sexual sin, regardless of the specific kind.

"LEVITICUS IS A HOLINESS CODE WRITTEN 3,000 YEARS AGO."

The Halacha (Jewish Law/customs) was given by Moses, which is called the "Law of Moses." Note the distinction between the Commandments given by God as consecrated by those given by Moses. Jesus even distinguishes between the two.

However, I assume you are using this as a way to say that it is antiquated, and therefore we are not subject to the law, to include homosexuality. But if we crack open the Bible, we will see that only those born-again are not subject to the law, since Jesus is the fulfillment and the summation of what the law was intended for. Those outside of it will be judged not apart from the law, and their conscience will bear witness and testify against them.

Regardless, the New Testament makes it clear that homosexuality is still considered an aberration, irrespective of how any of us personally feel about the matter. And really, that is all that I'm required to do to refute your claim since this debate is specific to the Bible and homosexuals.

"God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. -Romans 1:24-27

PRO states, "During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation"

This is a straw man as it is both an appeal to authority and an argument from consensus. If it weren't, then by this rationale the supposed aberration of homosexuality should never have been challenged to begin with. Its also worth mentioning that it wasn't until the coercion of the American Psychology Association (APA) by homosexuals that homosexuality was begrudgingly taken off their list of pathologies. By your logic, the myriad of psychologists, counselors, educators, etc prior to its amendment should have been heeded on the basis of their profession.

"that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences"

If it is UNKONOWN then how can sexual orientation be determined at all, let alone determine a COMBINATION of causes?

Anyhow, I thank PRO for making this post. I am looking forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

This should make for a good debate. Thanks for the acceptance of the challenge.

--- "JESUS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SAME SEX BEHAVIOR AT ALL... THE JEWISH PROPHETS ARE SILENT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY"

My opponent concurred that, "That is true." However, he went on to explain that Jesus and Paul condemned sexual sin butwho is to say that homosexuality is sexual sin? It is a natural genetic and social occurance according to many leading studies and sources including the American Psychology Association. My opponent also mentioned that homosexuality as a taboo topic was not the doing of a religious group. I disagree with this but it is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not the Bible excludes homosexuality as acceptable, which it does not.

--- "IT IS NOT IMMORAL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN."

My opponent and I agree on this aspect of this topic. Point dropped.

--- "THE CITIES OF SODOM AND GAMORA WERE NOT DESTROYED BECAUSE OF THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR BUT RATHER BECAUSE... OF THEIR ARROGANT WAYS."

We both agree, seemingly, homosexuality was not the reason Sodom and Gamora was destroyed. Rather, it did, more than likely, have to do with sexual sin this, more than likely, did not include homosexuality.

--- "LEVITICUS IS A HOLINESS CODE WRITTEN 3,000 YEARS AGO."

Opponent - "The New Testament makes it clear that homosexuality is still considered an aberration"

You mentioned Moses, a character of the Old Testament, not the new.

--- "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. -Romans 1:24-27"

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let's go back 2,000 years and try to understand why. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure. The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble. When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God's children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul's time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives. Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again. ([Homosexual] Reverend Mel White)

--- PRO states, "During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation"
"...By your logic...the supposed aberration of homosexuality should never have been challenged to begin with..."

Homosexuality should never have been questioned! It is perfectly natural. If science is not good enough proof to you that homosexuality is natural, then there obviously is no source or process good enough to prove that. I can't be expected to give you any better source than science. And why would God condemn something that he created?

--- "that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences"

I can only quote the scientists at the APA. I imagine they've done experiments to prove that you cannot determine your sexual orientation but have simply not determined those exact influences.

I am a bisexual American. I do not have a mental disorder. I was never molested or taught to be this way. I doubt that my God or your God condemns and will eventually chastise the way he supposedly created me.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"HE WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT JESUS AND PAUL CONDEMNED SEXUAL SIN BUTWHO IS TO SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS SEXUAL SIN?"

Uhhhh.... the Bible... That's what your debate is about, after all. You seem to be equivocating your personal feelings with the statement you've made. If you wanted to argue that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, then perhaps you should have framed your debate within that context.

Going off on wild tangents seems to be standard operating procedure around here, but I am going to remain within the framework of the debates premise.

"IT IS A NATURAL GENETIC AND SOCIAL OCCURANCE ACCORDING TO MANY LEADING STUDIES AND SOURCES INCLUDING THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATION."

Not that this is relevant to the debate, but I will again point out that this is an appeal to authority and an argument from consensus.

"YOU MENTIONED MOSES, A CHARACTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, NOT THE NEW."

When I did I was correcting a misnomer of yours. After that point I mentioned two verses in the New Testament that point to homosexuality being an aberration to God. Whether it was the Old or New testament, what is that supposed to mean when together they comprise "the Bible?" You say that as if it detracts from my argument and strengthens yours. You stated that the Bible doesn't exclude homosexuality. That isn't true, and I've demonstrated that.

"THIS VERSE SEEMS TO BE CLEAR: PAUL SEES WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN AND MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN, AND HE CONDEMNS THAT PRACTICE."

Right, so I'm not sure what you are even arguing about. You've now conceded that the Bible does in fact do what you claim it didn't.

My opponent quotes a Reverend, who he claims is homosexual.

"DID THESE PRIESTS AND PRIESTESSES GET INTO THESE BEHAVIORS BECAUSE THEY WERE LESBIAN OR GAY?"

First of all, his assertion is baseless and unsubstantiated. Read Romans and there is nothing within it indicating that Paul is referencing pagan rituals.

Secondly, go figure that his discourse wouldn't be a dispassionate liturgical endeavor given the fact that he claims he is gay but is also a Christian. He is attempting to reconcile the two because they are at odds -- because his message is disparate to the Bible's message.

"HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED! ITS PERFECTLY NATURAL."

Whether it is or it isn't, on what grounds do you make your claim? You have to appreciate the irony in this. If people say the Bible imposes its beliefs on the common man, then how is it any different if the common man imposes his beliefs on the Bible? Its all imposition, and its all relative. And if stating that homosexuality is an aberration is wrong, then you are going to have to substantiate that claim.

"IF SCIENCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH PROOF TO YOU THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL..."

Whoa, hold up a minute!... I gave no indication as to what my personal belief on the matter was because its irrelevant to your assertion. Again, if you really wanted to argue that homosexuality was natural, then you should have framed your debate within that context. It seems that all you really want to do is bash the Bible and to exonerate homosexuality from it.

If you want to debate about that, then switch your tactic. Just know that I think its pretty crappy to do that to someone who has already chosen to debate you on a specific topic. In any case, if you do decide to change the topic at least STICK to it, and make it clear as to what you really want to be debating. Because your opponent may be in agreement with you, and switching it in the middle of a debate forces your opponent to concede with you after the fact. That's not cool. Because as of now you are all over the place introducing one thing after another that bear no immediate relevance to the topic.

So please tell me what is it is that you want to debate, really, and be specific. Do you want to debate Christianity? Do you want to debate the Bible? Do you want to debate whether homosexuality is (un)natural? What is it that you want, because I can't make heads or tails of it.

And quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of people derailing a topic to smuggle in erroneous and irrelevant topics in the middle of a PRE-defined debate!
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

--- "HE WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT JESUS AND PAUL CONDEMNED SEXUAL SIN BUTWHO IS TO SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS SEXUAL SIN?"
Uhhhh.... the Bible... That's what your debate is about, after all. You seem to be equivocating your personal feelings with the statement you've made."

+ Yes. This is somewhat of a personal deabte, which is not unfair or against any rules. And my debate os about the exact opposite. Your posiotion is that the Bible excludes homosexuals as acceptable people. My position is that it does not.

--- "IT IS A NATURAL GENETIC AND SOCIAL OCCURANCE ACCORDING TO MANY LEADING STUDIES AND SOURCES INCLUDING THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATION."
Not that this is relevant to the debate, but I will again point out that this is an appeal to authority and an argument from consensus."

+ I apologize if I was unclear but this point is simply stating that homosexuality is natural and God-created and God would not force us to be something and then condemn it as he does not. The fact that it is appeal to authority and from consensus is accurate and irrelevant. It is ibviously a fancy way to say that it looks up to a mainstream source and the majority accepts it. Yes. Science is that authority which it appeaks to and the majority conceeds...Please debate instead of making small claims that my points are lesser in some way. Please actually contest what I'm saying. Thank you.

--- "YOU MENTIONED MOSES, A CHARACTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, NOT THE NEW."
When I did I was correcting a misnomer of yours."

+ ...perhaps I didn't catch the misnomer. I don't believe I questioned the Old Testament or its characters.

--- "THIS VERSE SEEMS TO BE CLEAR: PAUL SEES WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN AND MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN, AND HE CONDEMNS THAT PRACTICE."
You've now conceded that the Bible does in fact do what you claim it didn't."

+ This is word play. I say it "seems" like it. As in it does not. I went on to say: But let's go back 2,000 years and try to understand why. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure. The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble. When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God's children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul's time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives. Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again. ([Homosexual] Reverend Mel White)

...Please stop twisting my words in an unfair effort to win this debate...

--- My opponent quotes a Reverend, who he claims is homosexual.

+ Reverend Mel White is a homosexual reverend. And he's not the only one.

"DID THESE PRIESTS AND PRIESTESSES GET INTO THESE BEHAVIORS BECAUSE THEY WERE LESBIAN OR GAY?" First of all, his assertion is baseless and unsubstantiated. Read Romans and there is nothing within it indicating that Paul is referencing pagan rituals."

+ ? I'm simply saying that God did not abandon these preiests because they were homosexuals but because they were abusive and doing other rituals. Here is the surrounding scripture proving to you that these priests were not abandoned for being homosexual and that God would never do that:21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

---"given the fact that he claims he is gay but is also a Christian. He is attempting to reconcile the two because they are at odds -- because his message is disparate to the Bible's message."

+ It is not at odds. My entire side is proving that. And I have done that!

---" on what grounds do you make your claim?"

+ The APA agrees that homosexuality is natural. I've stated this.

--- If people say the Bible imposes its beliefs on the common man, then how is it any different if the common man imposes his beliefs on the Bible?

+ I agree. Stop imposing that gays are evil because some six scriptures out of millions vaguely mention homosexuality. Stop using religion to spread hate.

--- "you are going to have to substantiate that claim. "

+ ... I have!

"IF SCIENCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH PROOF TO YOU THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL..."

--- "you really want to do is bash the Bible."

+ No. I respect the Bible. And I do not believe that the seven scriptures out of millions that mention homosexuality are condemning the practice. I'm simply saying that God made homosexuals and he would not condemn them. As he would not condemn someone for being Asian or tall.

--- Do you want to debate Christianity?

+ No. I am Christian.

--- Do you want to debate the Bible?

+ The interpretaion. Yes.

--- Do you want to debate whether homosexuality is (un)natural?

+ No. I want to debate why God would condenm his mandatory creation.

--- I'm getting a little tired of people derailing a topic!

+ Then don't do it.

--- 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
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A PERSONAL DEBATE, WHICH IS NOT... AGAINST ANY RULES."

I'm not suggesting that you have to be dispassionate about it. What I was saying was that you need to stay within the pretext of the debate.

"homosexuality is natural and God-created and God would not force us to be something and then condemn it as he does not. It is ibviously a fancy way to say that it looks up to a mainstream source and the majority accepts it. Yes. Science is that authority"

You have not given ANY evidentiary reasons why God is accepting of homosexuality, be it through scripture or special revelation, nor have you (not that it is relevant to this particular debate) given any reasons why it is scientifically proven to be a natural predilection. Furthermore, if we are going by the Bible, which we are, then how can you honestly say that the Bible doesn't unambiguously state that it is immoral when it so obviously does? That is the premise of the debate, and I have successfully refuted your claim to the contrary.

"THE FACT THAT IT IS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND FROM CONSENSUS IS ACCURATE AND IRRELEVANT."

I appreciate that you concede that you are using logical fallacies, but pointing them out is not irrelevant. Any debate class would inform you of the same.

"Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex"

Show me in Romans where Paul is referencing Ephesian goddesses in order to substantiate the reverends claim. It sounds like an ad hoc excuse. But just for shits and giggles, lets say that he was referencing pagan rituals. Even supposing he was it doesn't negate the fact that Paul here is saying that homosexual acts are immoral. Read it again:

"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

But lets go further and look at yet another verse.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1st Corinthians 6:9-11

Point blank.

Is there anything really left for me to say showing that you are incorrect?

"PLEASE STOP TWISTING MY WORDS IN AN UNFAIR EFFORT TO WIN THIS DEBATE"

What am I saying that is inaccurate to what you've categorically stated? Allow me to quote you, verbatim, and then tell me how I am misrepresenting you.

"THIS VERSE SEEMS TO BE CLEAR: PAUL SEES WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN AND MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN, AND HE CONDEMNS THAT PRACTICE."

Where's the ambiguity in that? Its pretty cut and dry.

"GOD DID NOT ABANDON THESE PRIESTS BECAUSE THEY WERE HOMOSEXUALS BUT BECAUSE THEY ABUSIVE AND DOING OTHER RITUALS."

God does not abandon anyone, so its irrelevant. Scripture is adamant that God does not consign people to hell, rather, they consign themselves. As evidenced by the scripture below:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1st Corinthians 6:9-11

There is always forgiveness according to scripture.

"STOP IMPOSING THAT GAYS ARE EVIL BECAUSE SOME SIX SCRIPTURES OUT OF MILLIONS VAGUELY MENTION HOMOSEXUALITY. STOP USING RELIGION TO SPREAD HATE."

Again, I have not shared my personal beliefs on the matter. I'm simply debating the premise of the debate. I'm not spreading anything, I'm just correcting you. Secondly, even if six scriptures point to how homosexuality is wrong out of a million (straw man) the fact still remains that the Bible does NOT condone homosexuality as you claimed it did. All I have to do is provide one verse to completely nullify your whole argument. I have unequivocally done that.

There is really nothing left to say at this point other than, thank you for the debate. I look forward to seeing you in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
You are correct, the laws were not meant for every person, but they were meant for all the Hebrews.

Since you are not a Hebrew, all the laws are not meant for you.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
It's fine if Orthodox Jews participate in these laws but they were simply not meant for every person and the laws were ridiculous and are evidently outdated.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
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.

As a Jew I can honestly say this interpretation is completely false. This law in the Torah was for every Jew, including the laws of not cutting the sideburns, not wearing the linnen mixed with wool..ect. In fact, every practing Orthodox Jew follows those laws to this day.

The code for Israeli Priests were even more strict. For example, an Israeli "Kohen" (a priest) Could not marry someone who was divorsed. However, he could marry a widow. In fact, every descendant of a priest (kohen) in the orthodox Jewish circles follows that rule to this day.

If you think that's strict, the Israeli "Kohen Gadol" (The High Priest) Was only allowed to marry a virgin, a High Priest could not marry a widow or divorcee.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
Why don't you look at the topic Paradigm? It explains what were debating clearly.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
No prob man! lol! I wnt to accept the debate but I had to sign in first, and by the time I hasd signed in, you had taken it:P NO worries, I'l challenge him!
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
Sorry bro... To be honest with you, I'd give up this debate and give it to you if I had the option to. I honestly don't know what this guy really wants to debate. He's all over the place.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Paradifm Lost,

You beat me to this debate by seconds! lol!

notpolicydebategod,

Would you be interested in debating me on this issue?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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