The Instigator
rogue
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is Nothing Inherently Wrong with Being Gay

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
rogue
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,189 times Debate No: 18793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

rogue

Pro

The only hurtful things that come from being gay comes from the people who hate and discriminate against gays. I don't know what more can be said until Con points out some problems.
daley

Con

The faith of the Bible proved itself to be authentic by the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, namely, his burial by Joseph of Arimethea, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearences, and the origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection. Attempts to explain away these four facts have been rejected by contemporary New Testament scholarship. No naturalistic explanation of these facts stands up to scrutiny. Jesus therefore was who he cliamed to be and spoke from God. The Scripture upon which he relied condemn homosexuality as a sin, hence, in God's eyes, it is wrong. Any attempt to establish morality apart from God leads to moral relativism, which cannot be true because we all know deep inside that absolute moral values and duties do exist. Some things are indeed really wrong, such as rape, child abuse, racism, even if the ones committing these acts believe there are ok.

God created us in his image, which is why we all have certain basic moral standards. This explains why most cultures and religions view homosexuality as taboo. Gay people are rebelling against this natural order which God created by having sex with the same sex. What's more, homosexuality is wrong inherently because it involves the unclean practice of anal sex. Placing one's male testicle into a hole meant for excrement is no more a clean than sticking one's finger in a pile of stool. I would be interested in hearing how my opponent determines right and wrong morally. Sorry I took so long to post this argument; I was very busy and this computer needs fixing.
Debate Round No. 1
rogue

Pro

The faith of the Bible proved itself to be authentic by the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, namely, his burial by Joseph of Arimethea, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection."- These events have not been proven to have happened. You must show the historical evidence proving such events clearly happened without reasonable doubt.

"Attempts to explain away these four facts have been rejected by contemporary New Testament scholarship."- Not by all New Testament scholars. Not to mention that that proves nothing.

"No naturalistic explanation of these facts stands up to scrutiny."- Oh really? First of all the only reason we have to believe most of these events occurred are because it says so in the Bible which was compiled hundreds of years after the events supposedly occurred. There is no conclusive evidence that the apostles even wrote the books of the Bible. The Bible was also changed when it was edited by the Counsel of Nasea so we have no idea what the original document looked like. This is not to mention the fact that the Bible has been translated so many times and by so many different people that we have no idea how much of it was lost or changed in translation by it is extremely improbable that it is exactly how it was when it was written or that we are interpreting it the right way. Also, the gospels do not match up in their accounts. Only some of them speak of these miracles of which you assert to have happened. My point? The Bible is faulty and proves barely anything.

Now I agree that many explanations that people have come up with to explain these supposed events are sometimes far-fetched. I think the most common naturalistic explanation is merely that those events did not occur or at least not the way they were recorded to have occurred since they are highly improbable and evidence for them occurring is scarce.

"The Scripture upon which he relied condemn homosexuality as a sin, hence, in God's eyes, it is wrong."- Please cite this scripture.

"Any attempt to establish morality apart from God leads to moral relativism, which cannot be true because we all know deep inside that absolute moral values and duties do exist."- Oh please. It has not been proven by any means that there are absolute moral values. In fact many cultures approve of rape, child abuse, murder, and racism in certain situations. In the caste system in India it is perfectly moral to beat, rape, and murder the caste known as the untouchables. Though I cannot prove it, I am sure that deep down they feel that it is very wrong to marry an untouchable where as in our society it is wrong to be racist. Morals are based on society. Just because you feel that "deep down this is true." Does not prove anything. Many eyewitnesses in murder cases have sworn on their lives that the person they saw commit the crime was the person on the stand and believe what they are saying and then find that the person on the stand was clearly not the perpetrator due to a video of the crime scene. No two cultures have ever had the same morals.

"This explains why most cultures and religions view homosexuality as taboo."- This statement is unsupported.

"Gay people are rebelling against this natural order which God created by having sex with the same sex."- If it is unnatural then why are their bodies and minds telling them that that is what they want?

"What's more, homosexuality is wrong inherently because it involves the unclean practice of anal sex. Placing one's male testicle into a hole meant for excrement is no more a clean than sticking one's finger in a pile of stool."- First of all anal sex is a very common practice among heterosexual couples. There are also many ways to make sure that anal sex is clean and safe.

Don't worry about taking time to respond. I am a busy person too. ^_^
daley

Con

My opponent says that Jesus burial by Joseph, his empty tomb, his appearances afterwards, and the origin of the disciples' belief have not been proven to be historical facts. So she is using the "myth theory," that these were fabrications. But we have good reason to believe these are real events. The gospels are to be treated as historical sources because there was not enough time between the writing of the gospels and the events for myths to replace the core historical facts. Ignatius of Antioch (died 107 C.E.) quotes from John's gospel in his letter to the Ephesians. In fact, he quotes all four gospels in his letters, refuting any claim that these are second century forgeries. The John Rhylands fragment of John's gospel is dated 125-150 C.E., and enough time has to be allowed for this gospel to have circulated to the place where the fragment was found, Egypt. Papias also mentions Matthew's gospel in 115 C.E. So these documents were written by people living in the first century. We also know they were written by those whose names are on them, for if they were anonymous, a variety of competing authors would have arisen for each gospel as did happen with apocryphal gospels. This suggests that they received their titles very early. And if they were not written by the contemporaries as claimed, then why were such unlikely persons chosen as authors? Matthew was a tax collector, Jews hated them; Luke is a very obscure person, Mark abandoned Paul. (Acts 15:36-41) Would you pick the IRS man and an obscure apostle to author your gospel? Were obscure person deliberately chosen to fool us into thinking they were authentic? It is doubtful that the Gospels could have gotten anywhere unless they were certainly attributable to someone who was recognized as knowing what they were writing about. For an anonymous author to have penned a Gospel, and have it accepted as from the hand of any authoritative person, would have required them to first produce the Gospel, then present it as the work of another; they would have to concoct some story as to how it came peculiarly to be in their possession; get around the problem of why a work by such a person disappeared or was previously unknown; then get the church at large, first in his area and then throughout the Roman Empire (and would not the claimed discovery of such a document cause a sensation, and controversy?), to accept this work as genuine. Can Pro explain how these logistic difficulties were overcome? If Pro says these are forgeries, I want her to get down to the specifics of how one could have managed to pull off such a hoax on the church as a whole. Is there any parallel to this in secular history, where an enormous group at large was bamboozled by (and continued to be bamboozled by) not just one forgery, but four, attributed in a couple of cases to members of an inner circle, in widely separated places and times? The time gap between the dates of the gospels and the events they relate is too small for myths to replace the historical core. Luke got his information from eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-4) John was an eyewitness. (John 1:14; Rev 1:1-10) This refutes Pro's claim that this was written hundreds of years after the events; no, it was written by contemporaries of the events.

This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. He says that the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed generations and centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

First, Jesus' burial: as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimethea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. No disciples would invent a story where a member of the hated Sanhedrin does what is right by Jesus. The disciples could not have declared Jesus' resurrection in the face of a tomb containing his body. No competing burial story exists, thus we have no reason to think its legendary. Second, the fact that his tomb was discovered by women (John 20) in first century Palestine where the testimony of women was considered useless testifies to the honesty of the writers. Third, we have multiple, independent attestation of the resurrection appearances. (1 Cor 15:3-8; Matt 28; Mark 16; John 20-21) Last, these Jews came to believe in the resurrection so fervently, they were willing to die for this belief. This Jesus, raised by God, believed the Torah which said, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 19:22) If the Son of God says being gay is wrong, its wrong. His resurrection proved he was who he claimed to be, so unless Pro refutes the resurrection, she must see Jesus was God's Son. As such, he would know which scripture was reliable.

"The Bible was also changed when it was edited by the Counsel of Nasea so we have no idea what the original document looked like."

Pro, please provide your source for this. We don't know which manuscripts you are even talking about; there are thousands of Greek manuscripts in existence; not to mention the Old Latin versions of 200 C.E. which predate the Council of Nicea, yet these agree with the gospels we have today. As for translation problems, I've never another rendering of Leviticus 19:22 which does not condemn homosexuality. It is pretty clear, and so is Romans 1. When one does proper research into the languages, he learns the correct translation; just because men have freedom of choice to make poor translations doesn't mean you can't know which ones are reliable.

"the gospels do not match up in their accounts."

Please give examples, we don't know what you mean. At least I don't.

"Only some of them speak of these miracles of which you assert to have happened"

All four gospels mention the resurrection of Jesus; his burial, empty tomb, and appearances. Other gospel relating to other subjects need not do so.

Pro doesn't believe in absolute moral values, so in her belief, there is nothing really wrong then with gay-bashing? Either, its just her opinion that its wrong, or its really wrong! My challenge to her is this: if you truely believe there is no standard of right and wrong above and beyond ourselves, then a man who thinks he should rapes little 8-yr-old girls isn't really wrong. Pro says the society decides morality; so when the "society" of Nazi Germany decided to mistreat and kill Jews during the holocaust, they were right? The laws of their state permitted them to do this, so it was right? When the society decided to keep blacks as slaves, were they right because the society decided this acceptable? Majorities don't decide right and wrong; if it did, Pro would still lose this debate since most people are against homosexuality as taboo. Society says its unnatural. A man raping a ten year old girl is absolutely wrong no matter who or how many thinks it right! So is homosexuality. I'm out of space, more next round.
Debate Round No. 2
rogue

Pro

The gospels are to be treated as historical sources because there was not enough time between the writing of the gospels and the events for myths to replace the core historical facts."- What? I do not understand your point here.

"Ignatius of Antioch (died 107 C.E.) quotes from John's gospel in his letter to the Ephesians. In fact, he quotes all four gospels in his letters, refuting any claim that these are second century forgeries."- First of all, source this. Secondly, even if this is true, this does not prove that any of the gospels wrote the books of the Bible or that any of the facts in it are true.

"We also know they were written by those whose names are on them, for if they were anonymous, a variety of competing authors would have arisen for each gospel as did happen with apocryphal gospels."- Maybe people would have tried to claim they were written by themselves but this still does not prove that the apostles wrote the Bible or that the content has any truth. Someone could have easily written the books under the names of the apostles to add credibility.

"Were obscure person deliberately chosen to fool us into thinking they were authentic?"- Obviously they were not obscure people or no one would have taken the books seriously. They must have been known to be the apostles.

"It is doubtful that the Gospels could have gotten anywhere unless they were certainly attributable to someone who was recognized as knowing what they were writing about."- Indeed. But how would anyone know that the books were actually written by the apostles? They did not go around publicizing or doing book signings. There is no way to prove that they wrote the books.

"If Pro says these are forgeries, I want her to get down to the specifics of how one could have managed to pull off such a hoax on the church as a whole."- Now Con assumes that the church would not want anything but what was written by the apostles. The leaders of the church could have easily written the gospels to give credibility to the church.

Now I don't even know why I am arguing about this since I do think the gospels were written by the apostles. This however does not prove the Bible's contents to be factual.

" The time gap between the dates of the gospels and the events they relate is too small for myths to replace the historical core. Luke got his information from eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-4) John was an eyewitness. (John 1:14; Rev 1:1-10) This refutes Pro's claim that this was written hundreds of years after the events; no, it was written by contemporaries of the events."- Con assumes that if the gospels were written by the apostles then they must be true. What a misconception. Not to mention that Con has not sourced any of his contentions.

"Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy."- Alright but those authors were writing for the sake of recording history whereas the writers and editors of the Bible clearly had an agenda. Also the accounts of Alexander the Great do not defy the laws of modern science.

"When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed."- What do you mean by "legends"?

"No disciples would invent a story where a member of the hated Sanhedrin does what is right by Jesus."- Why not? Can you not see how this would be advantageous to them?

"The disciples could not have declared Jesus' resurrection in the face of a tomb containing his body. No competing burial story exists, thus we have no reason to think its legendary."- What? Are you for real? There are TONS of competing burial stories, and some which have merit. It would be so easy for them to have disposed of the body and then shown "oh hes not in the tomb! he must have been reborn!" The point is that there is no way to prove that he is reborn. According to modern science it is extremely improbably if not impossible. Even if we haven't come up with a logical explanation does not mean that there isn't one.

"Third, we have multiple, independent attestation of the resurrection appearances. (1 Cor 15:3-8; Matt 28; Mark 16; John 20-21)"- This proves nothing. People can see what they want to see. They could also have hallucinated, lied, or mistaken a man for Jesus.

"Last, these Jews came to believe in the resurrection so fervently, they were willing to die for this belief."- Once again this proves nothing seeing as modern psychology has found no correlation with how fervently someone believes something and how true it is.

"This Jesus, raised by God, believed the Torah which said, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 19:22) If the Son of God says being gay is wrong, its wrong. His resurrection proved he was who he claimed to be, so unless Pro refutes the resurrection, she must see Jesus was God's Son. As such, he would know which scripture was reliable."- First of all, this is not what is written in Leviticus 19:22. If you want to find the actual quote, I' take you more seriously. Even if Jesus was resurrected by some force, that does not prove he is who he says he is.

"Pro, please provide your source for this. We don't know which manuscripts you are even talking about; there are thousands of Greek manuscripts in existence"- Obviously I cannot provide you with the manuscripts but this is what I can provide you. To affirm the divinity of Christ, they changed the Bible.

http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.columbia.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.tertullian.org...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com...
http://www.fordham.edu...

"Please give examples, we don't know what you mean. At least I don't."- Have you read your Bible?

http://www.evilbible.com...
http://agnosticreview.com...
http://www.infidels.org...
http://www.awitness.org...

"Pro doesn't believe in absolute moral values, so in her belief, there is nothing really wrong then with gay-bashing?"- Nothing inherently wrong yes. But we have developed our idea of morality to keep society in order. We choose our own moral code. I believe that gay-bashing is wrong.

" if you truly believe there is no standard of right and wrong above and beyond ourselves, then a man who thinks he should rapes little 8-yr-old girls isn't really wrong. Pro says the society decides morality; so when the "society" of Nazi Germany decided to mistreat and kill Jews during the holocaust, they were right? The laws of their state permitted them to do this, so it was right? When the society decided to keep blacks as slaves, were they right because the society decided this acceptable?"- Nothing is inherently wrong about these things. But for societies sake most of us believe they are wrong, including me. I never said morality is decided by majority. I said culture greatly influences one's moral compass.

"Majorities don't decide right and wrong; if it did, Pro would still lose this debate since most people are against homosexuality as taboo. Society says its unnatural. A man raping a ten year old girl is absolutely wrong no matter who or how many thinks it right! So is homosexuality."-A huge amount of people are pro-gays. Cite that this is not so. It is not unnatural because if it were, their bodies would not be telling them to be gay. Though I do not approve of rape, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
daley

Con

daley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
rogue

Pro

My points still stand since they have not been refuted.
daley

Con

My apologies; internet connection problems stopped me from posting in the previous round. Now my opponent asked me to source where Ignatius quotes the Gospels. First, let me source that Ignatius died between 98 and 117 CE and was a student of he apostle John. http://en.wikipedia.org... Second, he cites Luke 24:39 in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:1-2; he cites Matt 7:16-20 in his Letter to the Ephesians 14:2. We could just go one giving examples. (Richardson, C. C. ed. Early Christian Fathers. Philadelphia. Westminster. 1953. reprinted Macmillan 1970) This suggests an early, first century date for the Gospels. The fact that none of the four Gospels mention the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem indicates they were written before 70 CE. Even my opponent herself admits "Now I don't even know why I am arguing about this since I DO THINK the gospels were written by the apostles." So this squarely rebuts her earlier claim in round 2, that "the only reason we have to believe most of these events occurred are because it says so in the Bible which was compiled HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE EVENTS supposedly occurred. There is no conclusive evidence that the apostles even wrote the books of the Bible." We can trust the Gospels because they were written by contemporaries of the events who were in a position to know what had happened.

She asked for sources, so can I. She said, "The Bible was also changed when it was edited by the Counsel of Nasea so we have no idea what the original document looked like." Will you source that? There are over 5, 300 manuscripts of the Gospels in Greek alone, too many for some council to change all. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net... Copies that predate the Council of Nicea agree with those that came after, so I don't Pro has casts much doubt on their reliability at all.

Pro maintains that we can't prove the apostles wrote the Gospels, yet, we have more unanimous testimony for the authorship of the Gospels than we have for other ancient historians such as Tacitus; so I guess her library must be pretty small.

"Alright but those authors were writing for the sake of recording history whereas the writers and editors of the Bible clearly had an agenda. Also the accounts of Alexander the Great do not defy the laws of modern science."

No historical writing is unbiased. All people have agendas; Alexander's biographers are no exception. The Jewish historian Josephus is biased toward his Judaism, looking at things through Jewish glasses; the atheistic historians begins with the biased assumption of naturalism, and interprets history in that way; rejecting as myth anything he can't explain such as miracles, and the Christians are of course biased in favor of Jesus. But Bible authors were exceptionally honest, even recording things somewhat embarrassing, such as Jesus not even knowing the time of his own return, and the apostles' sins. (Mark 13:32; Matt 26:31-35, 56, 69-75) When making up myths, people don't usually put in stuff that makes themselves or the hero of the story look bad. These writers did their best to report the facts. A church teaching that Jesus is God would not conjure up a story where he doesn't know the day and hour. Just because its Christian history the Gospels record doesn't mean its not recording history.

As I said before, more generations are needed for legends (fair tales, myths) to replace the core historical facts of what happened regarding Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus did exist, but here is the thing. The myth-theory has two layer - the historical Jesus who did no miracles, and the mythical Jesus who was the embellishment of the Bible writers, adding miracle stories. The problem is that no story of a non-miraculous Jesus has ever been discovered. The earliest references we have for Jesus present him as a miracle-worker. Now if Pro is going to say that a miracle could not have happened, she needs to give good reason for this. You can only say miracles can't happen if you know for sure that God does not exist. So unless she gives us some positive argument why we shouldn't think he exists, she can't rationally affirm that the miracles in the gospels could not have happened. In fact, the gospels are not unique in this regard, for many historical works record miracles, such as when Josephus says the waters of the Pamphylian sea parted for Alexander the Great to cross. This is recorded by four other historians, one of whom was with Alexander at the time and an eyewitness to the events. http://www.godrules.net...

"There are TONS of competing burial stories, and some which have merit."

Really? Cite one, and give your source please.

"People can see what they want to see. They could also have hallucinated, lied, or mistaken a man for Jesus."

Couldn't be hallucination because they were too many witnesses and it lasted too long, over 40 days; and if they were making up lies, why invent such a difficult faith to follow? They were persecuted for this faith, yet not one ever revealed it was their lie. Many have died for what they believed to be true, but none have died for what they knew to be wrong. The list of evidences against the hallucination and conspiracy theory are found in "EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, A Challenge for Skeptics," by Peter Kreeft http://www.freerepublic.com...

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 19:22) This is what the Son of God trusted, but Pro says Leviticus 19:22 doesn't say this. Huh? Please tell us what it says, and how you know this?

Pro says that to teach the divinity of Christ they changed the Bible. If she wants to give a specific example for me to answer, fine, but I'm not going to attempt to reply to all the information on her list of sites as it would take up too much space. Let me just put this on the table. John 20:28-29 appears in every single manuscript of John containing this chapter, and in all the quotes of John 20:28-29 where the earliest Christians cited this verse. I challenge Pro to show me proof this was changed, that it said something different before. Here we have Jesus acknowledged to be God by Thomas, and Jesus blesses his confession of faith, showing Jesus agreed. The disciples worship Jesus in Matt 28:9, 17, and in verse 18 he has all authority in heaven and earth. If this was changed from something else that came before it, show us proof. The earliest disciples knew Jesus as God. Don't give me list of sites, I want examples. This is how debate is done; the site link is only to show where the example is from so you can do further reading if you want.

Con gives many links to sites where so-called contradictions in the Bible are found. I haven't yet seen a single genuine contradiction. I'll send her one link, a debate on DDO. http://www.debate.org... If she wants to cite a specif example for me to reconcile, fine.

Note that Pro says there is nothing wrong with rape, incest, and the like. This is the slippery slope of gay-ism. Once you go down that road, you're open to many other sins. I'll simply let the readers decide if forcing another person to have sex is inherently wrong. Since she doesn't think so, it shows the lack of moral grounding Pro is on. She says, "It is not unnatural because if it were, their bodies would not be telling them to be gay." So if one's body tells him to go butcher her six-year-old son with an axe that won't be unnatural? A parent isn't supposed to have natural affection for her child? It goes to show, when you take God out the picture, it all falls apart - anything goes. Nothing is truely wrong without God's character as the standard.

Would you eat food off a toilet seat? Why then, put one's penis in an excrement hole? Its a nasty practices, thus, its inherently wrong for men to bull men. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
rogue

Pro

So this squarely rebuts her earlier claim in round 2, that "the only reason we have to believe most of these events occurred are because it says so in the Bible which was compiled HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE EVENTS supposedly occurred. There is no conclusive evidence that the apostles even wrote the books of the Bible." We can trust the Gospels because they were written by contemporaries of the events who were in a position to know what had happened."- You have still not proved that there is conclusive evidence that they wrote them, just that they lived during the approximate time that the gospels were written. I did claim that the books of the Bible were COMPILED AND EDITED many years later which is true. This occurred at the Counsel of Nicea. Even so you have not address the fact that translations and editing may have greatly distorted the original messages of the Bible. Also, the Bible was clearly written by men and one can only have "faith" that those men who wrote, edited, and compiled the Bible were truly inspired by God and hardly ever sinned. I for one do not trust in faith so I see no reason to view the views expressed in the Bible as inherent truths.

I would like to see some more sources stating from when exactly we have these manuscripts from. The essay you cited was clearly poorly written with bad grammar and spelling which alone makes me question its accuracy. I actually sourced what you asked me to source in the last round. One bad source is hardly enough to prove your point.

"Pro maintains that we can't prove the apostles wrote the Gospels, yet, we have more unanimous testimony for the authorship of the Gospels than we have for other ancient historians such as Tacitus; so I guess her library must be pretty small."- Nononono. I read your citation and it only proves that we have MANUSCRIPTS of the New Testament. Even if everyone agreed that the apostles wrote them, that means nothing. How would those people know that some one else did not write the gospels and pretend to be the apostles? We have no witnesses, just written records of a document.

"But Bible authors were exceptionally honest, even recording things somewhat embarrassing, such as Jesus not even knowing the time of his own return, and the apostles' sins. (Mark 13:32; Matt 26:31-35, 56, 69-75) When making up myths, people don't usually put in stuff that makes themselves or the hero of the story look bad. These writers did their best to report the facts. A church teaching that Jesus is God would not conjure up a story where he doesn't know the day and hour. Just because its Christian history the Gospels record doesn't mean its not recording history." This really proves nothing. Obviously what they wrote made you believe it and so if they used trickery it worked. People aren't going to stop believing that Jesus is the savior because he doesn't know the date and time. It works to their advantage by making him seem more human. Same goes for the apostles sinning. It makes them seem more human. Less people would believe that the apostles were completely sinless. That also makes for an uninspiring story whereas one about overcoming sin is a much better motivation. We have no good reason to think that apostles were honest even if they wrote the gospels.

As for all historical writings being biased: THAT IS MY POINT. Yet we admit that Alexander the Great made some stuff up but of course the apostles didn't!(sarcasm)

"The problem is that no story of a non-miraculous Jesus has ever been discovered. The earliest references we have for Jesus present him as a miracle-worker."- So what? The earliest recordings of King Arthur portray him as someone who is completely different from the people who lived at the time he was supposed to have lived. Most historians still agree that those were embellishments.

"Now if Pro is going to say that a miracle could not have happened, she needs to give good reason for this. You can only say miracles can't happen if you know for sure that God does not exist. So unless she gives us some positive argument why we shouldn't think he exists, she can't rationally affirm that the miracles in the gospels could not have happened."- This is a fallacy. First of all I cannot prove that God doesn't exist because one cannot prove a negative. I can rationally assume the probability of something' s existence or of it happening. I will not go into a God's existence argument because that is a long argument and this one has already degraded into a biblical accuracy argument. But, I can rationally assume that the miracles did not happen seeing as modern science can find no possible way for those things to have happened the way they are recorded. The defy the known laws of the universe.

"In fact, the gospels are not unique in this regard, for many historical works record miracles, such as when Josephus says the waters of the Pamphylian sea parted for Alexander the Great to cross. This is recorded by four other historians, one of whom was with Alexander at the time and an eyewitness to the events. http://www.godrules.net...;- And do not historians rule these to be embellishments? Also your source is clearly biased.

"Couldn't be hallucination because they were too many witnesses and it lasted too long, over 40 days; and if they were making up lies, why invent such a difficult faith to follow? They were persecuted for this faith, yet not one ever revealed it was their lie. Many have died for what they believed to be true, but none have died for what they knew to be wrong. The list of evidences against the hallucination and conspiracy theory are found in "EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, A Challenge for Skeptics," by Peter Kreeft http://www.freerepublic.com...;- First of all, do we actually know how many witnesses there were or is it just recorded in the gospels that there were witnesses? It could have started as a rumor that one person saw him and others joined the bandwagon. Also all of the arguments against the myth and conspiracy theories hinge upon believing that the apostles were honest and true and good in character. The truth is that we have no idea what the men who wrote the gospels were really like.

""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 19:22) This is what the Son of God trusted, but Pro says Leviticus 19:22 doesn't say this. Huh? Please tell us what it says, and how you know this?"- Because I can read the Bible. Look right here. See? http://bible.cc... http://www.biblegateway.com... http://lds.org... Isn't it funny when the atheist knows the Bible better than the christian?

I don't need to prove that all the verses changed. The fact is that we really don't know how much changed or what changed. My sites only showed that we have good reason to think that they did.

There are so many "genuine" contradictions in the sites I provided. I am not going to argue with you as to whether they are contradictions or not. Don't cop out and tell me that they aren't "genuine."

I clearly said that those things are not INHERENTLY WRONG. There is a huge difference. Don't twist my words.

"So if one's body tells him to go butcher her six-year-old son with an axe that won't be unnatural? A parent isn't supposed to have natural affection for her child? It goes to show, when you take God out the picture, it all falls apart - anything goes. Nothing is truly wrong without God's character as the standard."- First of all is not born with the urge to murder his son with an axe. Without God there nothing can be truly wrong. We can still think and act as if they are wrong for the sake of society(as I do) but that doesn't mean that they are.

The slippery slope argument is very faulty. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... http://www.garlikov.com...

You know anal sex is common within heterosexual couples right lol?
daley

Con

daley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
due to internet connection problems i couldn't continue this debate. i'm on a friends computer right now.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
this so far is a great debate, but so far I'm very slightly leaning towards the con side. this should be interesting though. Good luck, and have fun.
Posted by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
Use sources.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
roguedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The bible isn't a source, unless it is a debate about what is written in it.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
roguedaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: debate was about if being gay was wrong, instead it turned into an allout debate over the credibility of the bible and not what was actually wrong with being gay other than the "its a sin" defense. Con forfeited two rounds and pro provided a ton of sources, most of them checked out
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
roguedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a lot of unsubstantiated points, and Pro did a good job of refuting the bible as being reputable. Ultimately, Con couldn't show that there was something wrong with being gay, just that he thinks there is. Pro did well countering Con's arguments, though they were mostly not supported anyway
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
roguedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not entirely convinced that CON took this debate with any serious intention of debating, Pro's position was in effect to prove a negative so it fell to Con to establish some inherent wrongness with regards to homosexuality which he failed to do, indeed his arguments were absurd and childish.