The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

can gay people have a relationship with god and will they all go to hell according to the bible?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,374 times Debate No: 32436
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

According to the bible being gay is not a sin. It greatly bothers me that many Christians because of their misunderstanding of the bible violate its principles and rally to spread their hate

The burden of proof lies with pro.

round 1-acceptance/intro
round 2- state cases ( no refutation this round )
round 3- refutation
round 4- further refutation
round 5- conclusions/ refutation
Pennington

Con

I appreciate my opponent for starting this debate. I would like to offer some definitions and proper resolution here. I will also my limitation on the Bibles we use.

We will use the KingJamesVersion or the original Hebrew & Greek.



Pro has the burden to show homosexuality is not a sin. I think that a proper resolution should be as follows(bearing in mind my opponents case and meaning):


RESOLUTION: Homosexuality is not a sin(By the Bible) therefore they do not go to hell.

Definitions:

SIN- : an offense against religious or moral law. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Bible- : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Hell- (2) : the nether realm of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment.http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Homosexual- : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


I fully accept all of these definitions and terms, as well as accepting my opponent rules.


GL to Pro and I await round 2.

Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

let me first say I'm not going to allow allow the contender to change this resolution. It is quite illogical to attempt to change a resolution that the challenger accepts and then try to change it unless it has spelling errors.

I will also not allow the contender to limit which bible either of us use because no bible is more reliable than another. All don't have all of their biblical scripts and all have been translated giving room to human manipulation so no bible is more reliable than the other.

I hesitantly accept the definition of sin because of the moral component. A sin is really religious and really cant he applied to a subjective moral code.

I cannot accept cons definition of hell. The bible does not teach hell to be ruled by Satan and it is very idiotic to think that god would give Satan authority over anything he created. Giving Satan the reward of ruling hell would suggest that if we sin like Satan then god will award us with authority.

Hell for the purpose of this debate will simply be a graveyard.

We also cannot accept cons definition of homosexuality. just because a man has sex with a man does not make him a homosexual. Does a five year old boy who has been raped by a man automatically turn gay? No sex with the same gender does not define someone as being gay. being gay means you have a genuine attraction to the same sex.
It is not what you stick your genitals in.

Lets just use common sense to define these words that we already know.

......................................................,,,..,,,,,,....................

Well now I wish I structured this debate differently so that I could immediantly refute cons bible verses. but what I will do is propose pure logic this round and hopefully after my opponent posts his opposing biblical scriptures this round we will focus on biblical verses next round.

It is the status qua of Christians to believe that homosexuality is a choice and that they cannot be Christians and that they shall all go to hell. Though I'm agnostic I have studied the bible enough to realise that homosexuals can have a relationship with god ( be a Christian) and that gay people will not go to hell for being gay. I'm aware that most reading this must take what I'm saying to be blasphemy and that the bible says other wise. But I want you to ask yourself is that what it really says or have you been told that? The bible only says that homosexual sex and marriage is a sin. It never said the individual is the sin rather that a certain action is a sin. The bible says, those who sleep with their same gender shall not inherit gods kingdom, that a man lieing with a man is an abomination, that marriage is ment to be between a man and woman. Did you notice that all of these are actions? That means that one can stop the action. Though I could use these biblical sayings to prove the flaws of the bible and don't believe in these things my purpose of doing this debate is to simply clarify their misunderstandings of the principles they teach and show how Christians picketing their hate towards gay people is not only wrong but is contradictory to the benevolence of god and the so called good of the bible they preach while at the same time spreading and doing hateful things. thereby contradicting their cause.

So with that being said gay people can stop having sex the same way heterosexual people who want to get into heaven don't have sex. They can stop getting married which society already makes hard to do. It is not the fact that a man is naturally attracted to a man that the bible says is a sin. The only sins associated with homosexuals is gay sex and gay marriage. Atleast god didn't make it a sin for them to kiss or hug. So with that being said not every gay person will go to hell. Some will go to heaven and some will live in gods new kingdom in earth according to the bible. Again I must say I don't believe the things the bible says is either gods word or that its morally justified or logical, but I do understand its principles because. I. actually read my bible and I don't believe something simply because the status qua told me so. I can see some things clearer than others because I understand how the bandwagon fallacy can twist the trust or spread its misunderstanding. Christians believe being homosexual is abhorrent just like many Christians believed being African was abhorrent. I'm just saying that religion spreads hate and social progressive retardation sometimes and it makes those who understand what going on sad but yea that's for another debate. Vote pro.

I look forward to offering biblical clarity to the scriptures my opponent proposes next round.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round. My opponent stressed some concern about my definitions and resolution as proposed in my last round. I will go over those concerns now.

DEFINITIONS

He says he will not allow me to change the resolution but his resolution is a question not a statement. Resolutions are usually made as statements and then the one who makes the statement must show it true. This type of resolution mentioned in a question form is improper in a debate format. I did attempt to form a resolution that made a statement my opponent was intending. My opponent made statements such as homosexuality is not a sin and that homosexuals do not go to hell for being homosexuals. I think the resolution I designed was satisfactory. Nevertheless I will continue on with the resolution posted by my opponent and direct this debate in showing homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. I will also show that those who live in sin and do not repent of the sins they commit will end up in hell. These are statements made by my opponent in his opening round and reflect the intention of the resolution in question, therefore they are what I must argue against here.

My opponent also does not want to limit the usage of Bibles in which we will use. My opponent is incorrect about others not being more reliable then others and in fact the Hebrew and Greek is the original text. My opponent also complains about not having the scrip's of such texts but he has use of the internet as myself and can find them, I will even leave links when I can. Therefore any scripture used is beneath the original text and its meaning regardless of rules my opponent wishes to impose. He did not make it clear in his first round and therefore can not make those demands now. KJV is a regularly used translation.

My opponent opposes religious content in the definition of sin but he has made the claim of sin and hell by his own resolution and opening round. This debate is about sin(Biblically) and if homosexuality is considered a sin.

My definition of hell never says that satan or demons rule in hell, it claims they are contained there. I reject my opponents definition of hell! He supplied no source for this definition and it is a irregular one at that. Furthermore a graveyard is a place we all will be placed when we die and that means my opponent defeats himself by saying that homosexuals would not be put inside a graveyard. My definition stands.

My opponent further rejects my definition of homosexuality and never offers us another to take its place. Again, my definition stands. My definition is a regularly used one and is highly sourced. Without a doubt the distinguishing mark of a homosexual is their attraction to the same-sex or their having sexual relations with the same-sex. My definition addresses sex and attraction for same-sex individuals. My opponents meaning of homosexuality is abnormal and not usable in this debate.

My opponent request to use common sense for defining terms and this again is irregular in debate format. I have in my opening round brought forth well recognized definitions and terms when my opponent neglected to do so in his opening round. Let's remember that Pro started this debate and had the chance to define these terms properly but did not. I do have the right in acceptance to properly do so. Therefore my opponent is subject to the terms that have been put in place.

As of the rule my opponent set in round one, I can not rebuttal this round. I will for now offer five verses that make homosexuality appear as a sin.

VERSES

1. Genesis 2:21-25

"21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

We are first introduced to a human relationship here in Genesis 2. God takes a rib from Adam and creates a woman from that rib. This is were God first introduces the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. We can go even further in 1 Corinthians below.

2. 1 Corinthians 7

"7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."

Here we see Paul, stating that one without a husband or wife is committing fornication. Here Paul shows that pre-marital sex is a sin. We are given many examples of fornication as a sin and they can be brought out in further rounds if my opponent opposes this.

My opponent must show that homosexual marriage is condoned within the Bible in anyway. If he can not do that, then that shows it as a act of fornication(at the least) and a sin.

3. Leviticus 18:22

"22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This is clear that a man must not lie with a man as he would a woman. We can go even further into the meaning from Jewish traditional Rabbi's and show that any homosexual act between males here is classified as a sin. It is also a clear fact that two males who have sexual relations are consider homosexuals.

4. Leviticus 20:13

"13 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."

Again here we see the same language used but here we have added that those men who commit these acts are to be put to death.

5. Romans 1:26-27

"26 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: 27 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 recompence of their error which was meet."

In Romans we are introduced to the women also leaving the affections for men and turning to other women. As well the men also leave the woman for men. In the language here we are given the words, vile, unseemly, error, leaving natural use, and against nature. These terms are referring to sinful acts by those mentioned.

HELL

Homosexuals in their essence do not go to hell for just being homosexuals. Everyone has their own sin they must repent for and as so homosexuals must also repent for the temptations of their flesh. There are cases that people who have homosexual tendencies, who do not give in to those cravings and choose to repent to God for those desires. There are those who slip and commit homosexuals acts and choose to repent afterward because they feel wrong about it. These two cases are in fact cases were homosexuals can receive forgiveness and can possibly go to heaven and not hell.

Though a homosexual that is not repentant for their sin will end up in hell. Most homosexuals do not feel that their actions are not a sin and therefore do not repent to God for it. They are rejecting the Law of God and the intention of their sex given by God. By these actions they will receive hell for need seeking truth from God and accepting His Word.

I have submitted my case and will turn it back over to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

In order to win this debate I only need to prove that atleast one homosexual can have a relationship with god and can possibly not go to hell for being homosexual. Not only have I proven last round that being gay is not a sin, and such a statement does come from the bible but my opponent actually conceded that gay people may possibly have a relationship with god and may possibly not go to hell. With that being said this debate is already over, and can only logically result this debate in a pro vote pro vote.

this is how con concedes, he makes the following statement, " Homosexuals in their essence do not go to hell just for being homosexual"

this debates resolution is , can gay people have a relationship with god and will they all go to hell according to the bible? Con conceded his case by logically agreeing that homosexuals arnt sent to hell for being homosexuals because being gay is not a sin in the bible. So he is supporting my case obviously.
As I've been trying to prove in this debate simply being gay is not a sin according to the bible however some who are homosexuals commit sin by having same gender sex and same gender marriage. Not all homosexuals with have same sex intercourse, not all gay people will marry their own gender. So it is very illogical to say being homosexual is a sin according to the bible because it isn't. Con was supposed to take take the position that being gay gay alone means you automatically go to hell and cannot have a relationship with god. Judging by his concedence it seems I have convinced him that the pro side of this debate is right since he is making statements that support my case and refutes his own.

Con also fails to back up his case biblically. He says the bible says being gay is a sin and is not necessarily a certain action that is a sin instead. However none of the verses he provided backs up this claim. None of those texts said simply having an attraction alone is enough to be dammed forever and not be able to have a relationship with god. So again the pro pov of this debate once again proves to remain unreffuted While cons case no longer stands.

As far as my opponents definition concerns I wasn't going to say anything about it this round because those concerns were trivial and just Unnecessary complaints but I may say one does not have to post definitions in a debate . Where on the DDO site does it say you must post definitions.? nowhere is the awnser so again con makes baseless claims. I also must stress that we both speak English and can use common sense to understand simple words.

another thing that bothers me is cons issue with hell. He says hell is a realm of of demons and evil. One simple reason this definition is not reliable is simply because if humans go there forever how can it be a demons realm when humans are also supposed to reside there. If humans reside there as well then it must be demons and humans realm. Obviously this definition is inaccurate. Not every definition we find on the Internet is a trustworthy one. I could not accept the definitions con provided simply because the laws of common knowledge and sense don't agree with them making them invalid. Again just use common sense to define a word.

Now in this debate I have proven that cons position is one that holds no water. Con says being gay alone is enough to go to hell but cannot give us any solid biblical evidence of this, making his claim false. Con also conceded his case and supported my side of this debate and actually agreed with my points which is one of the best ways to win a debate by convincing your opponent your right by the actions he takes. I have proven that not all gay people will go to hell. To win this debate all I need to do is prove that their is atleast 1 gay person can avoid hell and can also have a relationship with god. This has been done. Con cannot prove his case while I have proven mine therefore a pro vote is a logical response to this hopefully mind opener of a debate.

Again the bible does not say being gay is a sin. IT only says having gay sex and gay marriage is a sin. Therefore not all gay people are sinners because not all will have sex or get married. therefore not all will go to hell witch makes this resolution a affirmative one.


Pennington

Con

My opponent wrongly assumes that all he must do is show that one homosexual can have a relationship with God and not go to hell. He is wrong in that assumption because his resolution is a question, not a statement. There is no definitive position my opponent accepts just from his resolution. It is when we look at his first round comments do we find my opponents intentions. From those intentions we see Pro say, "According to the bible being gay is not a sin", This is false and what I am arguing against. He further says, "It greatly bothers me that many Christians because of their misunderstanding of the bible violate its principles and rally to spread their hate." I am also showing that it is not hate nor misunderstanding that Christians consider homosexuality as a sin. My opponent is not a noob and knows that a resolution is a statement and not a question. A Resolution is:
1. : the act or process of resolving:
a : the act of analyzing a complex notion into simpler ones
b : the act of answering : solving
c : the act of determining http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponents only determination is made in his first round and not the resolution itself. Therefore I must argue against his first round statement and not the question left unanswered. Therefore my opponent must show that homosexuality(all homosexuality) is not a sin. My opponent also wrongly assumes that he has presented any kind of convincing argument that homosexuality is not a sin. Him just saying it or relying on us to believe it will not work.

My opponent also says I concede by saying, "Homosexuals in their essence do not go to hell just for being homosexual." Notice my opponent leaves out the explanation given and ignores that I said, "just for being homosexuals." A person who does not commit homosexual acts nor behaves like a homosexual but has homosexual thoughts or feelings, is not a homosexual. A homosexual is one who acts upon their thoughts or feelings. This is clear from the definition in the beginning. The definition is a definition of action and rightly so, to be a homosexual you must act as such.

My opponent continues to remind us of his resolution but never recognizes it is a question and is not a statement. I mean really, if we were to go just by his resolution then how do we know who's Pro and who's Con? It is a question left unanswered until we view Pros opening comments.

My opponent then ignores all definitions and rules and continues to act as if homosexuality in this debate is not related to anyone but those who have homosexual sex or attraction. My opponent is making himself look poor here by continuing to ignore definitions previously made. My opponent has ignored all my scripture that plainly says that homosexual activity is a sin. To be a homosexual you must commit homosexual acts. I have made the statement that those who have homosexual thoughts or commit homosexual acts are not nessasarily going to hell but that also doesn't make them homosexual either. They choose not to act as a homosexuals and don't do the actions defined in our definition, therefore they are not homosexuals per say.

My opponent may be able to pull off his resolution only if he shows that homosexuality is not a sin in the Bible. He has ignored trying to do so because it clearly says it is. My opponent ignores the verse in Romans that says women and men burned in lust for one another and this entails attraction. I have also stated that continuing to live as a homosexual and not believe it is a sin(which most do) means you will go to hell. You must repent and recognize your sin to find salvation from it. I have provided verses that say same-sex relationships in general are fornication's and are vile. I will now provide verses that specifically say that fornication is damnable.

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
1 Thessalonians 4:3, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication."
Revelation 2:21, "And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not."

As we see Fornication is not condoned, it is sinful, and without repentance it is damnable. Since one has to be actually doing homosexual acts to be called homosexual(otherwise your in the closet or chose no sex), then we can determine that the Bible says that if you act as a homosexual and live as a homosexual your are in fornication, which is a sin. Without repenting for sin you will go to hell. I provide verses that call homosexuals fornicators:

Romans 1:26 "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: 27 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 recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And 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; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers."

My opponent then ask were does it say that you must use definitions, no where. Where does it say that we must automatically know definitions or that we must take just anyone given? How are we to determine the proper meaning of words? We do this by posting properly sourced and documented definitions. This is what I did and because of that, those are the definitions that will be used. If that was not done then my opponent could claim any definition for homosexuality or any other word. My opponent is becoming fallious. He further was not going to address a issue as serious as understanding what it is we are debating about. My opponent obviously does not know the common meanings of words or intentionally ignores them.

My opponent also falsely accesses my definition of hell. My opponent then falsely says that any definition we want to make can fly but that is incorrect. This has obviously turned into a semantic troll debate. In any debate or public domain, the secular definition is used. I have supplied that in round one, my opponent can use any meaning he likes but this debate evolves around the definitions mandated in round one.

My opponent also incorrectly asserts that his position has water. He has done nothing but complain about commonly used definitions of specific words he used. He has attempted to redefine homosexual itself and ignore the common use of hell by authorities. I have stated that being homosexual is not what sends someone to hell, it is their error in not repenting for it. If a homosexual is not doing homosexual acts defined then they are not homosexuals until they act as one. My opponent must show homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible by the definitions given. My opponent can show us that homosexuals are not just people that perform homosexual acts(this includes attraction). I send it over to Pro and hopes he uses professionalism.
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro

well I'm too lazy to keep repeating myself. con still has not proven that any of his bible verses provided say that gay people cant have a relationship with god and that being gay means you will go to hell. he says that if gay people repent then they can avoid hell. con ignorantly assumes that gay people in general sin in the first place in the assumed status qua. the bible only says sleeping with ones own gender and marring ones own gender is a sin. it never says having an attraction to the same sex is a sin. and no the Romans verse doesnt count either... there is another meaning to that verse witch I don't care to explain. its really talking about a kind of sexual slavery. read the surrounding verses and anyone can see that

Also arguing about formalities and tradition is feeble attempt by my opponent to divert the audiences attention from the fact that no where in the bible does it say your going to hell for a simple attraction. Either my opponent is incapable of realising that gay people can ignore their attraction just like straight people do. or he is trying to make up for the holes in his case by diverting the audiences attention to insignificant things. I think both are true. and he will not win this debate by fallaciously arguing about formalities and discussing his ideas of how he thinks a debate ought to be like. so I'm not going to address those concerns anymore.

In my opinion this debate is over. I have done my job to prove hat nowhere in the bible does it say you will go to hell for the act of being gay rather than having gay sex. this issue is somewhat similar to gods command for straight people not to have sex before marrying or that virgins will go to heaven. they have thoughts sometime. I'm sure they get aroused sometimes does that mean there going to hell simply for the thought? of course not.

lets not also forget about gods forgiveness. Even if one does sin and have gay sex they can still have a relationship with god and will possibly not go to hell. God will forgive any sin they only sin he wont forgive is defamation against the holy spirit. God may even forgive those who slander his bible by manipulating it to spread human hate. He will forgive those who used the bible to promote slavery of African Americans as will he forgive those who stumble gay people from becoming Christians by saying you automatically go to hell for just the thought of being gay and even if you don't have gay sex or you don't marry gaily you still go to hell. witch is absolute ignorance. god can always forgive ignorance. So this is a second way that a gay person would be allowed to have a relationship with god and not go to hell, through repentance. so that's way number two why pro should win. lets also not forget the verse in the bible that says (paraphrasing) if it is your eye that causes you to sin than pluck it out for it is better that you loose a body part so that the entire body not be destroyed in gehenna. I'm sure we all get the point.

As I've stated earlier being gay is a state and is not an action. it is not what you stick your body parts in that defines a persons attraction. If a 4 year old boy gets raped by a man does that automatically mean that boy is now gay no? as we see this common sense contradicts cons definition of a homosexual. Again his definitions are not accurate. the voter only needs common sense to define these simple words.

My job was to prove that the bible does not say that being a homosexual is a sin. This has been successfully proven by cons lack to provide such. it was also my job to prove that a homosexual can avoid hell and can have a relationship with god. It was my intention to show that a gay person can also be a Christian and not feel like they sin because of who they are and not what they do. It was my ultimate intention to show that people misunderstand the bibles view on homosexuals. Most people think simply having an attraction is a sin, if that's true than even if straight couples are virgins they sin by having sexual attractions to each other even if they don't act on it. The latter is highly illogical and is my opponents stance in his debate.

Let my lastly address a final issue. I have a feeling that my opponent may try to say he wins because of his inaccurate definition of homosexuality. he considers the thought as being equivalent to the act. That is what we call illogical logic. What we can call his case is one that is not accurately supported by the bible but by its wrongful manipulation that even after such does not present a good case against homosexuality. Let me also debunk some common complaints I hear

The issue of Sodom and Gomorrah, god destroyed this place because they violated gods rule of hospitality and because there was gay rape. They sined by first rape of women and men. they sinned because of there vile sexual deeds. not because they were attracted to the same sex. according to the bible it is not the mind that sins but it is the body that does the sin.

In this debate I only needed to prove it possible for a gay person to have a relationship with god and possibly not go to hell. That has been proven by me cons job was to prove that gay people go to hell automatically and cannot have a relationship with god. it was also his job to prove the bible says these things. He has not accomplished these tasks witch is why voting pro is the only logical response to this debate
Pennington

Con

I will not address the semantics that this debate has been drawn into. I will instead focus on what I have presented earlier in the debate and elaborate more on it. I will address my opponent when he actually focuses on the debate at hand. Pro has conceded that sex outside marriage is a sin and that same-sex intercourse is a sin. He even also concedes that homosexual marriage is a sin.


Pro asserts I have not shown any verses that show homosexuality as a sin. Ok, lets look at what a homosexual is as defined in round one: Homosexual- : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. http://www.merriam-webster.com......


Here we are shown that a homosexual is one who desires the opposite sex or has sexual relations with the opposite sex. I will now show again and elaborate further on how the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and results in hell. I will start with Romans 1 because it gives both male and female.


Romans 1:26-27


"26 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: 27 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 recompence of their error which was meet."


My opponent never address this but simply shrugs it off with a allegation that it does not refer to homosexuality. Here we see the women giving up natural uses and we see that the men likewise did the same. We further see that lust was burned(desire) toward the same-sex, both male and female. The descriptors given for these actions are vile affections, against nature, unseemly, and error. Lets define these terms fully:


Vile- Second definition is, 'Physically repulsive'. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Unseemly- Not according with established standards of good form or taste. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Error- An act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


By these words it is clear that the Bible considered these actions described, forbidden by a code of conduct previously held.


To burn in lust is best described here- 2c : to become emotionally excited or agitated: as (1) : to yearn ardently. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


The description of burning in lust completely represents the first definition of homosexuals. Therefore we can see that having homosexual desire and action is vile, unseemly, and a error. What does the Bible say about vile and unseemly people and what happens to them?


1 Samuel 15:9, "....But every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly."


Isaiah 32:6, "For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord."


We see the Bible describes vile people as workers of iniquity and shall be utterly destroyed. This also describes the very thing my opponent is doing here by uttering against the Lord. We see God hates workers of iniquity:


Psalm 5:5, "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."


Psalm 36:12, "There are the workers of iniquity fallen: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise."


We are given the dagger for Pro when the Bible describes those that desire or do homosexual acts as having vile affections. We further see that vile people are workers of iniquity and shall be destroyed. Then we see Jesus say:


Matthew 7:23, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."


Jesus himself says that those who are workers of iniquity will be cast away from Him and homosexuals fit that description. This negates my opponents entire case. I will not go into semantics about if people who have homosexual thoughts, are homosexuals. They must crave, desire, or be acting as a homosexual. This as depicted above is considered sinful. My opponent claimed that homosexuality is not a sin and therefore no need to repent for it. Well here shows it is very much considered a sin or one would be cast away from God. Do we need to repent for our sins? Does not repenting cause us to go to hell?


Luke 24:47, "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations."


Acts 3:19, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."


So we see that repentance is required for our sins to be forgiven.


James 3:6, "And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell."


We see that workers of iniquity which is described to the actions of homosexuals, result in hell. To have a relationship with God is to recognize His Laws and repent unto Him for your sins. If one lives in homosexuality or desires to be homosexual even if they hold it off, is a sin. Those that think homosexuals thoughts who respect Gods Laws and can have a relationship with Him are those that believe what the Bible says and puts all restraint in their desires. We must remember that committing homosexual acts or brief desire is a sin but can be forgiven, if the person repents and knows they are wrong. To recognize that as a wrong shows the desire to not be homosexual or commit homosexual acts. Therefore a person who has a relationship with God and believes His Laws will not want to be a homosexual or be refereed as one, even if they have a sinful problem with it.


My opponent never shows us that a simple infraction does not define a person. He also never shows us homosexuality is not a sin and then ignores any other claim but simply asserting that it is not a sin. No scripture to support him, no interpretation that is legit, just his own feelings. To actually show the Bible says homosexuality is not a sin and go against the theologians who have said different, then Pro must show a case and not simply say it does not say it. Pro talks about forgiveness of sins and I agree but we are discussing something he considers not a sin, therefore no repenting or forgiving needed. He clearly admits that all homosexual activity is a sin and even thinking about being a homosexual is a sin.


Since my opponent never addresses any of my other verses I have chosen to address this one in Romans. This gives him room to address it in his last round. Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 4
frozen_eclipse

Pro

Im going to kick this last round up a notch wanted to keep this debate simple but no longer. I will state some of cons statements in bold underlined.

Throughout this entire debate con has claimed the bible supports eternal damnation and no prospect for a relationship with god if you have an attraction to the same sex. Last round he stated,

"I will address my opponent when he actually focuses on the debate at hand. Pro has conceded that sex outside marriage is a sin and that same-sex intercourse is a sin. He even also concedes that homosexual marriage is a sin.

It seems con is taking out his frustration on me because his case has been falling apart. He claims I concede that homosexual sex is a sin along with sex outside of marriage. When discussing the bible yes those are its views. However it seems con is incapable of realising that not all homosexuals have sex. Therefore not all homosexuals those who are attracted to the same sex automatically sin via fornication. Society, mainly the Christian society seems to not be able to comprehend that. It is not same sex attraction that is a sin according to the bible but it is the act of having same sex intercourse that is a sin. This debate is based on the bibles views and not ones own. Witch seems to be cons case, his own views.

Lets now address these definitions.

Almost all of cons definitions fail on the claim of fallacies of definition. Witch is a fallacious argument where one depends on a particular source to correctly define a term 100% of the time and or it fails because of circularity or obscurity. Cons definition of homosexuality is obscure,and incorrect therefore it fails. Lets look to the bible to look at this situation. First of all there is no word for homosexual in the bible in its original translation. Secondly regarding this subject the bible only says a man who lies with a man is an abomination and it is a sin. --Leviticus 18:22 It never said to love another man is a sin, it never said to kiss another man is a sin. It also never said to have a bromance is a sin. Christians use these verses for their own agenda to spread their hate to those attracted to the same sex witch god does not support. If it was a sin to give another man affection then in --1 Samuel 20:42 David and Jonathan must have went to hell according to con because they kissed and held ea other. Does that make them homosexual? NO.

If a 5 year old boy is raped by a man does that mean the boy victim is now gay and will forever burn in hell because he was raped? Absolutely not god cant possibly be that cruel. So as we see cons definition of a homosexual is illogically flawed. Just because someone has sex with the same gender does not make both in the situation gay. As I explained rape victim cant be turned gay because they are raped. To be a homosexual is to have an attraction to the same sex. Not to have sex with the same sex. The bible also supports this. It says if a man lie with another man as he does with a woman it is a sin.--Leviticus 20:13 it didn't say if you like another man but if you lie with one and we all know that means sex.

In order to win this debate the only thing I needed to do was prove that atleast on homosexual can avoid hell and have a relationship with god. at has easily been proven. How? the fact that to be a homosexual is not a sin according to the bible means that gay people don't in for simply being gay. According to the bible they sin when they have sex or get married. As long as they don't do those two things they can avoid hell and be a Christian and not feel bad about it at all. This is the opposite of the popular beliefs of Christians. They hate homosexuals for the absolutely natural way they are. Since they cant understand them they hate them. Throughout history Christians have manipulated the bible to spread hate. A perfect example would be when Christians enslaved African Americans saying they are the superior race and that African American people have the mark of cain. The bible didn't say any of this but again hey used the bible to spread hate the same way they use it today to spread their hate against gay people. As I've said earlier I don't agree with the bible and I don't think its god words because it is to contradictory and easily manipulable. I however cannot stand by while pastors and preachers defile the bible even further and spread their hate rallies and actually convince people that the bible supports this type of hate. It doesn't and this prosecution needs to stop. It needs to end just like slavery needed to end.

Con erroneously tried to connect vile burning lusts with homosexuality and I will prove why such a thing is illogical. according to con vile is something physically repulsive. He fails to realise that for something to be repulsive is based on ones perspective and is therefore a subjective thought, there is absolutely no objective connection between the two nor are they synonyms.

To burn in lust according to con is to become emotionally excited or to yearn ardently. again this term is not synonymous to the term homosexual. Again this is defines numerous things. A straight couple can burn in lust. Does that make them gay? No so as we see con trying to call these words synonymous is illogical.

Romans 1 26,27

First of all no human can prove that this verse is talking about gay sex therefore this verse is useless. t could be talking about human slavery for all we know. Also 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.

Workers of iniquity

in·iq·ui·ty
[ i níkwətee ]
  1. injustice or immorality: great injustice or extreme immorality
  2. immoral act: a grossly immoral act
Synonyms: immorality, heinousness, evil, injustice, crime, wickedness, sin, vice

http://www.bing.com...=

So as we see a worker of iniquity is one who commits a sin basically. Since I have established that to be a homosexual alone is not a sin his claim around this term completely fails. This is just another part of his case that fails along with the rest.

My opponent says that even having a sneaking thought of homosexuality is a sin. According to pros logic That means kissing, holding hand admiring other guy, or looking at another guys muscles and wanting some of your own means your going to hell. That is a very ignorant claim is such is true then Jesus sinned with his relationship with Lazarus and so did David and jhonahan when they kissed and hugged. We know these weren't sins and were just affection between friends. I don't think that when a guy and a guy hugs and one of them feels the others parts o accident or accidentally get aroused from the contact means they should go to hell forever that's ridiculous. It doesn't mean their gay either.Any type of contact can give a guy an erection.

Again all of the biblical verses con provides do not prove the bible to say that homosexuals will all go to hell and that they cannot have a relationship with. In order for con to win he must prove both to be true witch is impossible for him to do since our reference is the bible witch doesn't support his case. Though he believes it does.

In any event I have proven that a homosexual can avoid hell and have a relationship with god. Either through repentance for other sins or not sinning in the first place. Therefore pro should win this debate.




Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round and good debate.

Pro admits to not wanting to get deep in this debate and wants casual definitions and terms, so that he can simply ignore the doctrine of the Bible, which is the topic here. My opponent continues by making claims that I have never endorsed. I have never said someone could not have a relationship with God. My opponent wrongly suggest that we are debating attraction. Attraction is a wide term and we in fact can be attracted to objects, same-sexes, and animals. My opponent wrongly inserts attraction in place of lust or desire.

Pro continues on the lines that we are not placing homosexual as the terms defined instead of his own terms. He claims that not all homosexuals have sex, even though it is defined as desire or sex. I will state again that someone who has a relationship with God and values the Word He has given us, will not desire to be homosexuals. This is even if they do have tendencies toward homosexuality. Are we to say that every person who as had thoughts about homosexual behavior is homosexual? No! We can not even say that every person who has done a same-sex sex act is homosexual. A homosexual wants to be homosexual, they give in to that craving, therefore even if they do not have sex, they are desiring each other.

My opponent attacks my definitions but never once offers us any to replace them. This is fallacious when debating a topic that require meanings implied. My opponent never does anything but say that my definition of homosexual is incorrect.

My opponent then makes a outrageous claim that homosexuality is not given a word in the Bible. Well here we go:

(Sodomites): includes same-sex prostitution. http://biblesuite.com...

(Arsenokoites): a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity, sodomites, homosexuals. http://biblesuite.com... http://biblesuite.com...

My opponent tries to complicate the issue by saying that merely loving the same-sex is homosexuality, but it is not. You can love anything or anyone. The Bible simply says that the men are not to lay with other men as women. What do loving men and women do? They kiss and have sex. Public acts of sexual affections were looked down upon in those times so acts of affection were done in the home or were you would lie. This statement 'to lie like women' does include any act that would be preformed in the bed by a man and woman. My opponent ends by killing his point here saying, "David and Jonathan must have went to hell according to con because they kissed and held each other. Does that make them homosexual? NO." Conceding that kissing and affections are not in the definition of homosexuality.

Pro further goes on by mentioning people who have been subjected to homosexual acts but are not themselves are included in anything I've said in this debate, he is incorrect. My opponent blatantly ignores the first definition about 'desiring to be homosexual' and that excludes any who doesn't. He then supports me case by saying that, " Just because someone has sex with the same gender does not make both in the situation gay."

We gather that homosexuality means:

1) Same-sex intercourse

2) Desire in the same-sex

My opponent claims he has proved that homosexuality is not a sin and that a active homosexual has a relationship with God. He hasn't at all. I have shown without any retort by my opponent that Romans gave desire and homosexual intercourse as a sin and punishable. My opponent goes on a rant about off topic things not in the Bible and some of it is correct. He is incorrect to say Christians are spreading hate for homosexuals when they are simply reading the Bible. My opponent had to give us verses and lengthy interpretations on why the Bible says homosexuality is not a sin, he is pro and he has the BOP. Instead we are left to either take his word or not. Is Pro a accomplished Biblical doctrine?

My opponent then tries his heart out to not connect vile desires with homosexuality but he can not. We have the connection here:

"26 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: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another."

This obviously describes homosexuality described in the definition. My opponent forgets that we are discussing the Bible and its perspective are from inspired men from God. This therefore means, its contents are the opinion of God. God's opinion is homosexuals burn in lust and have vile affections toward one another.

My opponent obviously has problems with meanings of words. To 'burn in lust', 'yearn ardently', 'desire', are synonymous in the context we are using and are synonymous with the first definition. The Bible specifically labels homosexual acts with these terms. My opponent is correct in that anyone can burn in lust for anything.

My opponent is reaching for air. He claims that we can not determine that Romans is describing homosexuality...Hmm...I let the readers determine these meanings:

1. God gave them up unto vile affections.

2. Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

3. And likewise also the men.

4. Leaving the natural use of the woman.

5. Burned in their lust one toward another.

This describes both definitions and leaves my opponents case critically wounded. His case dies when he admits that homosexual sex and marriage is a sin.

Pro is correct in that homosexuality was a temple prostitution as well as female prostitution. He then offers use a false option that sexual orientations were not discovered yet, What, really? My opponent is just being silly here: "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." My opponent expects us to believe that people then did not know about homosexuality or gay tendencies. Well we have seen them describe it back to Genesis to Romans, I think they had their heads wrapped around the idea pretty well.

Since my opponent has not shown any scripture to show that homosexuality is not a sin or reserved for damnation then his remarks to iniquity falls down. He never addressed it at all after the implications of it. Even if his case was solid, which it is not, he should have given us a rebuttal.

My opponent then just offers us spotty logic and misrepresentations to close. I have never claimed that kissing another man is homosexual behavior. There is a difference here, to kiss a same-sex individual in a lustful or desiring sexual way is a sin but to kiss them out of love or respect is a different case.

I have shown that homosexual intercourse is sinful. I have shown that homosexual desire is a sin. I have briefly shown that sinners go to hell. I will now show that not asking forgiveness for sins is damnable.

Acts 3:19, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

If our sins are not blotted out then we can not receive forgiveness. The Bible has always been represented as showing sinners go to hell. I will show that Christians should live by the Bible and follow Gods words.

James 2:24,"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

This tells us that a Christian will live as the Word of God tells us too. How can a homosexual who does not confess that sin and chooses to deny what the Bible says, not receive damnation? They can not, this works for any sin. If we sin and do not confess them, then we are not acting like a Christian. That is a Biblical and Christian doctrine. If one had a relationship with God then they would tend to live as God wants them too. Pro fails to show the resolution true. Lets remember again that pros resolution is a question and not a statement at all. It should have read, "gay people can have" and not "can gay people have."

Thanks to all readers and vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
"funny how con ignored half my case...lol"

That has got to be a joke.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
funny how con ignored half my case...lol
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
hmm i can see how this could be confusing..oh well
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
wow apparently my arguments are based on opinion? ehhh why do i even debate anymore...smh.......and to mr pennington its taken me a long time for me to analyzise the christian religion and rligion period and as of know there is no dought that i believe all existence is energy and i believe hat energy is what humans call god......but i cannot believe a book written by humans. Why because other religions beleive in their books the same way christians do. And i think it is a absolue phenomenon that different religions can believe in what they have so faithfully when other religions believe their right as well in the same degree. As of now i dont believe in the bible and am a agnostic leaning towards atheism. I used to be a jehovahs witness but then i discovered they have their terrible secrets and dug up their contradictions as well. To me all religions are contradictory and thats my personal belief. Though i did believe in it while i was a witness i studied intently so i know what the bible is made of. ad ofcourse they dont hold my same veiws...lol.....again logic is how one can determine if a religion is right for them,or no logic at all its a choice.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
@frozen_eclipse, So, God gave us His Word to find Him and He wouldn't keep it intact? Atleast the inspired parts? If your not going to believe your Bible and not believe God will keep it true for you, then why believe at all?
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Yes but they would not desire or want to be labeled as a homosexual because they fellowship with God. Therefore they repent.
Posted by docpony 4 years ago
docpony
My point is is that they will still feel the temptation and maybe give into it, but can still have a relationship with God.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
That was my argument.
Posted by docpony 4 years ago
docpony
I get what your saying, and that's what I'm saying. If you are unwilling to repent you have most likely not truly received the lords love. The only two people our sure of your salvation you and God. If you are unwilling to repent of something obviously defined as sin then you probably aren't truly saved. I have a pornography problem, but i recognize the sin and repent for it and face the guilt.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
How so?

I identified that homosexuality is a sin. Being gay is homosexuality. To live as a homosexual is a sin. To have homosexual sex is a sin. Not repenting for sin is damnable.

Now I never claimed that someone who commits homosexual acts will go to hell. I claimed that one who does not repent for homosexual acts will go to hell. Then I showed that those who are homosexual want to be homosexual. Those that believe the Bible and know God would not want to live in sin. Therefore negating the resolution.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
frozen_eclipsePenningtonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the retard qopel
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
frozen_eclipsePenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: We had an agreement.
Vote Placed by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
frozen_eclipsePenningtonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con earns conduct as Pro created a bad resolution and rejected good-faith definitions. Con gets spelling/grammar, which should be pretty obvious. Con gets convincing arguments for actually using Biblical sources; Pro's arguments were mainly based on his own opinion.