The Instigator
blackliger777
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

homosexuality is not a sin

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 1 vote the winner is...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 87784
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

blackliger777

Pro

Hello, homosexuality and same sex marriage is not condemned and here's why.

These are not 100% accurate translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they've been taken them out of their Scriptural and cultural context.

So, let"s put them back, and have a look"

Because they are basically repeating, I will just deal with the non murderous verse Leviticus 18:22.

That chapter starts off with God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to "not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."

It then goes on listing many various incestual restrictions, and then it tells not to have sex with a woman when she is having her period, then it tells not to have sex with your neighbors wife.

Then it takes a completely different turn, and tells not to give any of your children to be sacrificed to the Pagan god Molek.

After that, the restrictions of a mankind with mankind and sex with animals come in.

The reason for that is because back then in the culture God was referring to, the Pagans would start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

However, if you chose to ignore all of that, it is a fact that those two verses were only referring to men, and that means they could not refer to any and all homosexual sex for any reason.

One must factor in the cultural and Scriptural context. The Jews of that time, and in that culture did not know that a woman had a egg. They thought the the man's seed was like the seed of a plant, and the woman was (Like an incubator) just to be implanted with their seed. They also held increasing their numbers to the utmost importance. There are a few reasons for that, but the most crucial, was because they wanted to make their religion more dominant.

So, their reasons were based on their biological ignorance, and for the most part selfishness.

Given their belief they viewed any use of a man's seed other than for the attempt at procreation to be anything from uncleanliness, all the way up to murder.

Given this, it's not surprising that that would have an issue with a man having sex for any reason other than to procreate. However, if you take all of that into consideration, and the fact that they were coming into contact with cultures that embraced things like pederasty, and Pagan fertility orgies. It would be no surprise to see a lot of parts in the Old Testament (Torah) that strictly forbade men having any kind of sex other than sex to procreate.

But, in fact there are only 2 out of 23,145 verses in the Old Testament (Torah) that some state have to do with it directly forbidding men having sex with men. And, as I have pointed out, it is clearly backed up by the Scriptural and cultural context, that it was not any and all homosexual sex that was being condemned.

It is paganism.

I forgot to add this regarding Leviticus chapter 20...

If the focus of that murderous chapter was not surrounding Pagan idolatry, why would it start off with this?...

(Leviticus 20:1-5)

The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.A279;

With Romans:26-28 it is actually right there in the context of the scriptures that Paul was not referring to homosexuals. I think you would agree that just because someone engages in homosexual sex does not mean they are a hoimosexual.

Here is the context...

"Because of this, God gave them over"

Because of what? Here is what...

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

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

Now that is not Paul reffering to homosexuals, those people were Pagans engaging in idolatrous sex orgies.

Again...

The reason for that is because back then in the culture Paul was referring to, the Pagans would occasionally start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

The fact is that there was never any Greek or Hebrew words that were used in refrance to homosexuality used anywhere in the Scriptures, and there were words that would have left to question as to what the writer was reffering to. It is humans that have been equating aspects of Paganism with homosexuality, not the writers of the Scriptures or God. This is nothing new, things like this have been going on for as long as the Scriptures have existed.

(Let's hope I can get a decent opponent this time)

Oh yeah. about "Sodom and Gomorrah".

Why is it that some of you have equated an angry mob threatening to gang rape some strangers in their city with homosexuality? Are you aware of the fact that not one Jew/Hebrew/Israelite in almost 4000 years ever taught that? They have always taught that the people of "Sodom" treated strangers and the needy sadistically at times, there are horrible stories regarding this in their teachings. Are you also aware of the fact that there is not one living Biblical Scholar that believes that homosexuality was the reason for their destruction? Even the Scriptures where Jesus and God describe the reasons, it was not due to homosexuality.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ condemns specific towns which reject His disciples to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

These passages from Jesus show that hospitality was seen as a quality of righteousness in the ancient world.

Any city that proved inhospitable, was condemned to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain indeed treated visitors with cruelty, brutality, and viciousness.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 is a unique passage in that God Himself talks of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

This passage confirms the above allegations concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain were "overfed", indicating a wealth and abundance of food and resources.

They were "unconcerned", as Isaiah and Jeremiah both pointed to their arrogance, and "haughty and did detestable things", demonstrated in their treatment of the young girls and their treatment of God's angels.

They also refused to help the needy and the poor, an indication of the selfishness of the people.

If it would not have been for the intercession of the angels, Lot might have been counted amongst the Sodomites victims. And, the Angles would have most likely been killed.

I hope that clears up your confusion, and that you stop spreading lies and distortions that have caused nothing but harm and death to multi-millions of God's children and in His name worst of all.A279;
V5RED

Con

I will start off with my evidence that the Bible condemns homosexuality and would certainly not allow for homosexual marriage.

Romans 1:24-27 “ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

This clearly bans all homosexual relations and specifically calls them sinful.

Leviticus 18:22 “R39;‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

Again, banned.

Leviticus 20:13 “R39;‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Not only banned, but a death sentence here. Given the verses in Romans, the death sentence logically applies to female homosexuality as well.

So, that dealt with homosexuality. What about homosexual marriage?

1 Corinthians 7:3-5” “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control

This clearly states that a married couple must engage in sexual relations. Since homosexual relations are prohibited, it is not logically possible for a homosexual couple to enter into a Biblically approved marriage.

“Hello, homosexuality and same sex marriage is not condemned and here's why.

Both are clearly condemned.

“That chapter starts off with God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to "not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."

It then goes on listing many various incestual restrictions, and then it tells not to have sex with a woman when she is having her period, then it tells not to have sex with your neighbors wife.

Then it takes a completely different turn, and tells not to give any of your children to be sacrificed to the Pagan god Molek.

After that, the restrictions of a mankind with mankind and sex with animals come in.”

You are contradicting yourself here. It started with restrictions for mankind and continued to give restrictions throughout the chapter. There is not a “completely different turn” anywhere. It is literally a list of prohibitions.

“The reason for that is because back then in the culture God was referring to, the Pagans would start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.”

So the god disapproved of all of those things and told the people not to do them. How does this in any way imply that he was okay with homosexual relations. It is clear from scripture that these acts carried a death sentence. [2]

Also, source?

“However, if you chose to ignore all of that, it is a fact that those two verses were only referring to men, and that means they could not refer to any and all homosexual sex for any reason.”

That is how most of the rules are written. The consideration is mostly for how men behave, not women. That said, I already showed that the Bible condemns both male and female homosexuality in my opening.

“But, in fact there are only 2 out of 23,145 verses in the Old Testament (Torah) that some state have to do with it directly forbidding men having sex with men.”

How many times does a thing need to be explicitly forbidden for it to count?

“I forgot to add this regarding Leviticus chapter 20...

If the focus of that murderous chapter was not surrounding Pagan idolatry, why would it start off with this?...”

Verse one makes it clear that verse was referencing prohibitions on the worship of Molek. Verse 2 clearly departs from Molek goes on to other types of pagan worship. Verse 3 then instructs people, who have already been told not to follow the rules of other gods or pagan rules, what rules they are to follow from this god. He starts by telling them to reject other faiths and then gives rules specific to the faith of his people.


“I think you would agree that just because someone engages in homosexual sex does not mean they are a hoimosexual.”

Again, I reject this semantic game, and it still doesn’t help you since you are trying to prove that the Bible allows for homosexual marriage

“Here is the context...’Because of this, God gave them over’…’God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another’...Now that is not Paul reffering to homosexuals, those people were Pagans engaging in idolatrous sex orgies.”

First, you incorrectly cited the verses. You quoted Romans 1:18-25

Second, it is clear that this passage is saying that their sexual acts were sinful. They stopped praising the god figure, so he gave them over to complete sin which included sexual immorality. The problem with your quotation is you stopped short of the part where homosexuality is explicitly banned for both men and women.

Here are those verses: Romans 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”


“The fact is that there was never any Greek or Hebrew words that were used in refrance to homosexuality used anywhere in the Scriptures, and there were words that would have left to question as to what the writer was reffering to.”

You are trying to play a semantic game with translations of translations because the translation does not go the extra step of saying that being a homosexual is sinful. That said, I can fill in that gap for you.

It is stated in the bible that the thought crime of lust is equivalent to the physical act of adultery.[3] Since homosexual sex was forbidden under penalty of death, following the same logic, having homosexual urges is also sinful.

I will end with an argument I used in an earlier debate:

“The Bible literally tells people to execute homosexuals. It does not say throw homosexuals out of the temple of Moloch or tell homosexuals to stop having sex in the temple of Moloch, it says to kill them. There is a small reference to Moloch, but this is just a ban on worshipping the pagan gods of that temple, and in all the verses in Leviticus 20 dealing with that, it is explicitly mentioned. After Leviticus 20:5, people are then given explicit instructions to kill homosexuals, children who curse their parents, witches, etc.”[1]

[1] http://www.debate.org...

[2] http://biblehub.com...

[3] http://biblehub.com...

[4] http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Debate Round No. 1
blackliger777

Pro

I have alread in detail proven that those verses that some of you so desperately want to beleive are condemning any and all homosexual sex for any reason do nothing of the sort by using their Scriptural context. You are in fact using parts that so obviously were regarding things like Pagan idolotrous orgies. I could also provided some basic cultural context, and I can provide a lot more that proves you wrong.

Given the fact that you are not capable of proving that homosexual sex is any more a sin than heterosexual sex, your argument regarding what qualifies as a marrage is groundless.

I also don't need to argue the Law of Moses, because Jesus fulfilled all of that and we are no longer bound by any of it.

And here is a conservative right-wing site that provides proof of that in detail...

http://www.gotquestions.org...

I do not expect you to beleive that either, but I did enjoy how you erroneously claimed that "There is not a "completely different turn" anywhere." in Leviticus 18, when in fact, not sacrificing one child to some Pagan god is in fact a major change from the context, and it fully sets up the continued context for the following verses.

You are trying to claim that the context is a list of prohibitions, but to interpret the Scriptures in that way, is irresponsible at best. By doing it your way, the Scriptures clearly state that if a man rapes a virgin woman and is caught, he must pay her father and she is to marry him for as long as he lives.

"First, you incorrectly cited the verses. You quoted Romans 1:18-25"

No I did not, I put the verses people like you love taking out of their Scriptural context back in. Those verses are the start of that chapter, and provide the context for the rest of it.

I know people like you hate context when it is not in your favor, and you deny it all the time.

The people that were engaging in those idolatrous sex acts in Romans, was not the issue Paul had with them. Sure, in Paul's eyes, things like that would be shocking, and be against his cultural upbringing.

You want to remove the reason for the act, and make it all about the act.

Tell me, what part in the Scriptures condemn any and all homosesxual sex for any reason when there is not even a hint of idolatry involved in the context?

How much research have you done regarding Pagan fertility rituals? I have done extensive research into them, and they were unbelievably elaborate in most cases.

"That is how most of the rules are written. The consideration is mostly for how men behave, not women. That said, I already showed that the Bible condemns both male and female homosexuality in my opening."

The start is fairly true, but the end is not. None of it refutes what I stated.

You clearly want all homosexuals to be put to death, but not even Paul wanted that in the verses you are claiming he did.

Romans 1:28-32

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God"s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

That is what a homosexual is to people like you, and you are the ones that are more like those than Paul is condemning.

"It is stated in the bible that the thought crime of lust is equivalent to the physical act of adultery.[3] Since homosexual sex was forbidden under penalty of death, following the same logic, having homosexual urges is also sinful."

Lust is not a passing thought, or a sexual orientation, it is a sexual obsession. And, in the case that Jesus was referring to, it is sexually obsessing over someone other than the person you are married to.

When two people make the choice to fully commit themselves to one another, that is a marrage. For one partner in a marrage to lust after someone else, is them breaking a commitment and contract not only between the two people, but to God.

For you to use that part of the scriptures in the way you just did, proves that you have distorted interpretations on them.

We all do on some level, but the anti-homosexuality folks have proven that they have been misusing them for a very long time.

You have not refuted anything I have stated, and you have provided proof of how you misuse the Scriptures for whatever reasons.
V5RED

Con

I am going to start off this round by suggesting you look up ad hominem because you did a lot of it in your last response.

“I have alread in detail proven that those verses that some of you so desperately want to beleive are condemning any and all homosexual sex for any reason do nothing of the sort by using their Scriptural context.”

In a debate you don’t simply claim you defeated a point, especially one that was raised as a rebuttal to your earlier points. Also, what makes you think I care what the scriptures say? I took this debate because you are making claims you can’t back up and pretending the Bible says things it clearly does not say.

“You are in fact using parts that so obviously were regarding things like Pagan idolotrous orgies.”

Even if you had demonstrated that the prohibitions were being used to discuss how wicked the pagans were, it is very clear that the acts themselves are listed as wicked. All you would have shown is that the god is using the pagans as an example of people who do wicked things, including homosexual sexual relations.

This would not imply that homosexual relations are acceptable outside of paganism. That said, you never demonstrated that the sexual verses were referring to pagans. If it wasn’t clear enough in the way pagan ritual is demarcated in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20 makes it crystal clear as I already showed and will show again shortly.

I could also provided some basic cultural context, and I can provide a lot more that proves you wrong.

Then provide it with a source.

Given the fact that you are not capable of proving that homosexual sex is any more a sin than heterosexual sex, your argument regarding what qualifies as a marrage is groundless.

I already provided that evidence in Leviticus and in Romans where homosexual sex is explicitly listed as sinful.

When the book wants to refer to activities that are not sinful in and of themselves, but only sinful when done in the context of paganism, the book makes that point clear. For example, worship is not sinful, but when directed at a god other than the Hebrew god it is. This is shown in 1 Corinthians 10:7 when it is explicitly stated that they must not worship false gods.

Let’s go back to Leviticus for a minute. Leviticus 20:8 is an explicit command to follow the decrees of the Hebrew god. Guess what follows that explicit command? A bunch of decrees including one that explicitly tells the Hebrews to execute homosexuals. There is no way to misinterpret that unless you have an agenda. For example, if you have an agenda to twist a bigoted, hateful book into being a loving, kind book.

I also don't need to argue the Law of Moses, because Jesus fulfilled all of that and we are no longer bound by any of it.

Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus explicitly states that he has not come to abolish the law of Moses and that it will apply until the earth has ceased to exist. I know a lot of Christians like to use the “but that’s the Old Testament” excuse, but it does not hold water when the Jesus figure explicitly states that the Mosaic Laws still apply. Additionally, if you actually believed this, then why did you bother trying to soften the Old Testament? This feels like you are trying to escape the inescapable conclusion that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality.


And here is a conservative right-wing site that provides proof of that in detail...

http://www.gotquestions.org......

Here are a bevy of Christian websites that reject that interpretation(which, by the way is not “proof” of your position)

http://www.thebible-tencommandments.com...

http://lifehopeandtruth.com...

http://www.gty.org...

The thing is, in a debate we deal with the arguments of the debater, not the arguments of others that you post links to. I cited scripture that is clear in meaning and explained how it fits into my argument. I didn’t just post links hoping someone else would do it for me.

“You are trying to claim that the context is a list of prohibitions, but to interpret the Scriptures in that way, is irresponsible at best. By doing it your way, the Scriptures clearly state that if a man rapes a virgin woman and is caught, he must pay her father and she is to marry him for as long as he lives.”

Well, it does say that. There are some who say that the father can reject the payment, but regardless the raped woman really gets no say in her future. The bible was written by people who, by today’s standards, were bigots.

I put the verses people like you love taking out of their Scriptural context back in.

More ad hominem

I know people like you hate context when it is not in your favor, and you deny it all the time.

More ad hominem.

The people that were engaging in those idolatrous sex acts in Romans, was not the issue Paul had with them. Sure, in Paul's eyes, things like that would be shocking, and be against his cultural upbringing.

No, it is the acts themselves that are referred to as sinful. Read what I quoted. It is explicitly stated that men having sexual relations with men and women having sexual relations with women is sinful. There is not any implication here or ANYWHERE in the Bible that homosexual sex is permitted under ANY circumstance. For things that are forbidden to do in a pagan context, like worship, but are encouraged in a Hebrew or Christian context, the distinction is made clear. I proved this earlier in this round. By the by, this is New Testament, so your prior attempt at a “but that’s Old Testament” defense doesn’t work here.

Tell me, what part in the Scriptures condemn any and all homosesxual sex for any reason when there is not even a hint of idolatry involved in the context?

Do you think that the 10 commandments must be thrown out because they start with an order to not worship other gods? Does that mean those rules are only talking about pagans? You seem to be grasping at straws to cherry pick this book and remove anything that goes against your views.


None of it refutes what I stated.

How does a set of verses that clearly defines male and female homosexual sex as sinful not obliterate all of your points? You need to actually refute a point, not just say it is refuted.

You clearly want all homosexuals to be put to death

Exponential ad hominem.


“That is what a homosexual is to people like you, and you are the ones that are more like those than Paul is condemning.”

More slander.

Lust is not a passing thought, or a sexual orientation, it is a sexual obsession. And, in the case that Jesus was referring to, it is sexually obsessing over someone other than the person you are married to.

Source for this interpretation? Still, this was your only legitimate rebuttal this round as opposed to simply slandering me or repeating your prior statements without directly addressing what I said, so I guess that is something.

“For you to use that part of the scriptures in the way you just did, proves that you have distorted interpretations on them.
More ad hominem.

You have not refuted anything I have stated, and you have provided proof of how you misuse the Scriptures for whatever reasons.

More ad hominem and some irony considering you used this round to insult me and claim victory without actually rebutting any of my major points. I am still waiting for a legitimate rebuttal to my arguments from the last round and not a simple repeat of their initial points. I want them to directly address my arguments, not just tell me I am wrong.

One thing I do want to add is a mistake I made in the last round where I made a mistake with the verse numbers in Leviticus. It was verses 1-5 dealing with pagans, 6 dealing with spiritualists, and then the 7th verse is where the explicit instructions for how Hebrews should behave begins.

Also, I am pro gay marriage and don’t believe a word of the Bible. This is irrelevant to the debate, but I can’t just ignore the slander my opponent wrote.

Debate Round No. 2
blackliger777

Pro

What you are viewing as an "ad hominem" are obvious facts regarding you, so if you have some issue with how you are, I recommend you try bettering yourself.

Given how you are trying so very hard to defend the anti-homosexuality eisegetical interpretations on the Scriptures, is proof that you are not pro gay marrage, and that you do beleive all of the Scriptures.

I have had anti-homosexuality religious folks like you try stating so many lies about your intentions, and many other things. Your words prove otherwise. And, this is not a debate, it is a YouTube comment section.

I bet you even ignorantly still beleive that the sin or one of the sins of "Sodom" was homosexuality.

Not one of the links you provided refutes the one I provided, in fact the opposite is true. There is nothing in any of the Scriptures that states that only the moral aspect of the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians. Either Christ fulfilled all of it, or He failed.

That includes the 10 Commandments. Jesus even did away with the restrictions regarding the Sabbath in the 10 Commandments while He was alive. I am not even sure why you care about the Torah, in your mind the homosexual aspect is backed up by the New Testament. The same is true for all the 10 Commandments but the ones regarding the Sabbath.

Remove temple prostution and idolatrous sex orgies, and your beloved verses in Romans would not have existed. Would you care to get into how the Apostle Paul felt about many other things that are considered irrelevant, and even ridiculous?

Here is a fact for you, for a homosexual to have sex with someone of the opposite gender would in fact be them giving up what is natural for them for what is unnatural for them. I am not stating that has anything to do with those verses, where (at least the vast majority were heterosexuals) were engaging in all forms of sex in a orgie, but in the mind of someone like Paul, it was all shocking, and all unacceptable.

So, you go look up "THE TRUTH ABOUT ROMANS AND HOMOSEXUALITY" Then come back and prove it wrong. If you do not, that will be you fully admitting that you are wrong.
V5RED

Con

I will start this round with my current assessment of my opponent. Pro has been begging for someone to take this debate seriously. Pro has had a few attempts at this debate go awry with people discontinuing partway through or just telling Pro that Pro is obviously wrong without giving serious argumentation. I took this debate in good faith giving serious arguments against Pro’s position. I cited chapter and verse and then gave clear explanations for why Pro’s rationalizations fail. At no time did I attack the character of Pro except to chastise Pro for relentless ad hominem attacks in the last round and in this opening where I am chastising Pro for Pro’s childish response to getting what Pro asked for.

Pro wanted someone to take this topic seriously and challenge Pro’s arguments. I did that. Pro responded by insulting me, calling me a bigot, and then doing the equivalent of a child sticking its fingers in its ears, closing its eyes and saying “I can’t hear you, you are wrong”. At this point, it seems clear to me that Pro has no rational, logical, or mature way to deal with my arguments and has lost this debate on all possible metrics.

The 7 point system deals with conduct, spelling and grammar, argumentation, and sources. Let’s see how that is going so far.

Pro’s conduct is reprehensible. Pro has been slandering me for two rounds essentially for taking the Con side. What makes this worse than such slander in a typical debate is the fact that Pro has been petitioning hard for someone to take the debate seriously and when someone does, Pro insults him for it.

Pro’s spelling and grammar speak for themselves.

Pro has failed to actually rebut points, instead choosing to simply tell me I am wrong.

Pro has even tried the cheap route both in this round and the last round of linking me to someone else’s argument as opposed to relying on Pro’s own arguments. That is not how you debate.

Pro has repeatedly made truth claims about things like pagan rituals without citing sources.

There is still time to turn some of this around by doing things like citing sources and actually rebutting points, or Pro can do the only honorable thing left to Pro in this debacle and admit defeat. To my mind, resorting to insults and refusing to give real rebuttals is essentially that admission, but Pro could at least end this debate in a dignified fashion.

“What you are viewing as an "ad hominem" are obvious facts regarding you, so if you have some issue with how you are, I recommend you try bettering yourself.

More ad hominem

Given how you are trying so very hard to defend the anti-homosexuality eisegetical interpretations on the Scriptures, is proof that you are not pro gay marrage, and that you do beleive all of the Scriptures.

More ad hominem. Also, I don’t believe any of the scriptures to be true. I am arguing as to what is in the text, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Do you think that people who argue about Harry Potter believe that Voldemort posed a legitimate threat to the world?

I have had anti-homosexuality religious folks like you try stating so many lies about your intentions, and many other things. Your words prove otherwise.

More ad Hominem which is especially ironic since I have a number of debate on here debating against theism and theistic ethics.

And, this is not a debate, it is a YouTube comment section.
No, this is a debate. That said I do have a (hugely unsuccessful) YouTube channel which is actually relevant here. You have slandered me by saying that I am a homophobic bigot who believes that god tells me to hate and kill homosexuals.

Here I discuss the ridiculous ideas from the religious right about homosexuality and demonstrate that I see homosexual people as equal to myself, that the idea of bigotry against them is ridiculous: https://youtu.be...

Here I discuss why unnecessary suffering is strong evidence, if not outright proof, that most iterations of the Christian god cannot exist:

https://youtu.be...


I bet you even ignorantly still beleive that the sin or one of the sins of "Sodom" was homosexuality.

More ad hominem. Also, I didn’t care about your bit about Sodom and Gomorrah, it was not necessary to make my case, hence ignoring it.

Not one of the links you provided refutes the one I provided, in fact the opposite is true. There is nothing in any of the Scriptures that states that only the moral aspect of the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians. Either Christ fulfilled all of it, or He failed.

Did you read anything from the links? They clearly describe the idea of fulfilment as “to bring to its highest extent”. This means that the laws were solidified by him as opposed to being abolished. He makes it very plain in the verses I cited that your idea that the Old Testament no longer applies is an idea to which he was very much opposed.

In any event, the point of the links was to show that I can link to other people’s arguments too. It was to show that using such a tactic is cheap and should not be used in debate.

That includes the 10 Commandments. Jesus even did away with the restrictions regarding the Sabbath in the 10 Commandments while He was alive.

Cite the verses that back this up.

I am not even sure why you care about the Torah, in your mind the homosexual aspect is backed up by the New Testament. The same is true for all the 10 Commandments but the ones regarding the Sabbath.

Do you remember your opening arguments where you spent most of the time trying to soften the Old Testament and when I demonstrated that you had failed you tried to pull the old “but that’s the Old Testament” trick? It is, quite frankly, insulting the intelligence of the voters that you would try to base most of your argument on a softened version of the Old Testament and then accuse me of being the one stuck on Old Testament.


Remove temple prostution and idolatrous sex orgies, and your beloved verses in Romans would not have existed. Would you care to get into how the Apostle Paul felt about many other things that are considered irrelevant, and even ridiculous?

You have said that many times and it has been refuted many times. This is getting repetitive. You are completely ignoring my arguments that show the difference between things that are only banned when done in a non Hebrew/Christian fashion yet are not banned for Hebrews and Christians. You have also failed to show a single verse where there is the slightest hint that homosexual relations are ever permitted. In fact, you have yet to deal with more than one argument I made. Your only legitimate rebuttal to any point I made was to challenge me on the definition of the word lust. Aside from that you are basically copying your opening and refusing vehemently to address my arguments directly.

Here is a fact for you, for a homosexual to have sex with someone of the opposite gender would in fact be them giving up what is natural for them for what is unnatural for them.

How is that relevant to this debate? This debate is about whether a particular book condemns homosexuality and whether it would permit gay marriage, not about what homosexuality entails.

I am not stating that has anything to do with those verses, where (at least the vast majority were heterosexuals) were engaging in all forms of sex in a orgie, but in the mind of someone like Paul, it was all shocking, and all unacceptable.

I think you kind of admitted defeat here. You are admitting he found homosexual relations to be unacceptable.

So, you go look up "THE TRUTH ABOUT ROMANS AND HOMOSEXUALITY" Then come back and prove it wrong. If you do not, that will be you fully admitting that you are wrong.

Again, you are trying to present someone else’s argument as if it were your own and you seem to think that can win you the debate. I have no interest in the sexual practices of Romans. Your job was to defend your position which requires you to actually refute my points, not simply declare that you win because you think I am a bigot.

Debate Round No. 3
blackliger777

Pro

You clearly are the one eisegetically interpreting the Scriptures in this. Trying to accuse me of that is psychological projection. You are also clearly far more Scripturally ignorant than I. So, until you educate yourself on them, your words and opinions mean nothing.

"Cite the verses that back this up."

https://www.biblegateway.com...

I posted my info, you do not agree with it, there is nothing more to be stated at that point. I will provide you with other sources, and info, if you do not agree with them, or want to refute them, do so. But I have better things to do than deal with people like you.

No, Romans 1:26-27 does not condemn any and all homosexual sex for any reason. All Christians have a duty before God to interpret scripture honestly, in context, instead of divorcing verses from their context and then insisting they mean something they never meant to the original hearers.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:26-27

Because all scripture is given in a biblical cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic, literary and religious context, those factors must be part of our thinking as we seek to understand scripture. Romans 1:26-27 was given in a very clear context.

There is no cultural indication, no doctrinal indication, no historical indication, no linguistic indication, no literary indication, no religious indication, that Paul intended to blast lesbians and gays in Romans 1:26-27.

Instead, Paul chooses as his illustration, the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles, the sin of idolatry, so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, in chapter 3:23, everyone is guilty. Here is how Paul puts his argument together.

The context of Romans 1 is pagan worship of false gods, particularly Cybele, known in the first century as Protectress of Rome or Magna Mater - Great Mother. I devote three pages on this website to answering the question: Why is Cybele vital to understanding Romans 1?

I also point out that early Christian writers like Aristides understood Paul to be describing Cybele worship. Paul has a particular goal in mind when writing to the church at Rome. That goal involved presenting the glorious gospel of Christ, Rom. 1:16-18.

The gospel reveals and declares the wrath of God against sin, that God punished Jesus for our sins when Jesus died, as us for us, as our Substitute. Yet no one gets saved until s(he) understands that s(he) is a sinner who has transgressed God's holy law for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Therefore, to make it clear that all are sinners, Romans 3:23, Paul references idolatry, pointing out the idolatry of Gentiles who worshiped false gods, and by implication, the idolatry of Jews because in the OT, they also broke God's law and worshiped the false gods of the Gentiles. Their particular worship of false gods involved same sex sexual rituals, Lev 17:7, 18:3, 21-22, 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13, Deu 23:17-18.

Paul uses words like akatharsian in Rom 1:24, the same Greek word used in the Septuagint translation of the OT to describe shrine prostitution and shrine prostitutes. Almost everyone who read Romans 1 in the first century would have been struck by the link to shrine prostitution which Paul's use of akatharsian indicated.

To support his argument, in Rom. 1:26-27, Paul cites examples of idolatry utilizing the idolatrous behavior of Gentiles in the OT and the idolatrous behavior which was part of everyday life in mid-first century Rome. That idolatry was the unholy worship of Cybele, also called Minerva and other names, depending on one's cultural heritage.

Cybele as the Phrygian goddess had five temples in mid-first century Rome. As the consort of Jupiter, she also had another temple in Rome besides her five Cybele temples. Cybele was featured on Roman coins used in mid-first century Rome and throughout the empire.

Cybele was also called Magna Mater and Protectress of Rome. Paul illustrates idolatry by using an example with which all of his Roman readers would be familiar - Cybele worship. Yet his intention wasn't to attack lesbians and gays. His intention is to support his idolatry argument with easy to recognize illustrations so that his Jewish audience will be nodding along as they read.

"Yes, those wicked idolatrous Gentiles..." Then, just as his Jewish readers are saying, "Yeah Paul, tell it like it is," Paul drops his bombshell in chapter 2:1ff. when he says, You Jews are just as guilty before God as the Gentiles.

So in chapter 1 Paul indicts and condemns Gentiles for the sin of idolatry. In chapter 2 Paul indicts and condemns Jews because, says the apostle, you do the same things the Gentiles do. In chapter 3:10-23, Paul concludes that all are under sin, both Jews and Gentiles.

That is the historical context, the religious context, the cultural context and the spiritual context of Romans 1. Idolatry is the focus of Paul's argument, not gays and lesbians. The cultural and religious context is unfamiliar to some modern readers because many modern readers are unfamiliar with Roman history and Jewish history in the first century AD.

Paul's point never was
about lesbians and gays.

Early Christians like Aristides and Justin Martyr understood Paul to be condemning shrine prostitution. Our rule of interpretation is:

Scripture cannot mean NOW
what it did not mean THEN.

If Paul was not describing committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in AD 58 when he wrote Romans, then it is wrong to insist that those verses are dealing with committed same sex partnerships now.

Christians need to do more reading and study before concluding that the first notion that pops into our head when we read Romans 1 is infallibly correct. Sometimes, the first thing we think when we read a verse of scripture is wrong. That is why we are encouraged to "Study to shew yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." -2 Timothy 2:15

http://www.gaychristian101.com...

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

http://biblethumpingliberal.com...

http://www.gaychristian101.com...

http://www.gaychristian101.com...

http://www.gaychristian101.com...

http://www.gaychristian101.com...;
V5RED

Con

Ad hominem is an attack on the opponent in an attempt to discredit the opponent so that the opponent’s arguments are rejected without being rationally refuted.

If you say “2+2=6” and I respond by saying “you are wrong and you only think that because you are stupid”, I would have engaged in ad hominem. You are repeatedly telling me I am wrong without any direct refutations and telling me that the only reason I give the responses I do is because I am ignorant/a bigot/have an agenda/etc. You have now spent 3 rounds engaged in ad hominem and are now introducing new arguments instead of defending your initial ones.

“You clearly are the one eisegetically interpreting the Scriptures in this.”

More ad hominem. You are trying to imply I am wrong because you think I am a bigot.

“Trying to accuse me of that is psychological projection.”

I accused you of having an agenda and being intellectually dishonest because you respond to arguments with insults, make claims without sources, and refuse to address my arguments directly.

“You are also clearly far more Scripturally ignorant than I.”

More ad hominem. You are now saying I am wrong because I am dumb.

So, until you educate yourself on them, your words and opinions mean nothing.

More ad hominem.

https://www.biblegateway.com......
This does not back up your claim. This link shows Jesus clarifying the Sabbath, not abolishing it.


I posted my info, you do not agree with it, there is nothing more to be stated at that point.

Why did you sign up for a debate site if you refuse to address criticism? Why make the debate 5 rounds if you reject the idea of a back and forth discussion of ideas?

I will provide you with other sources, and info,

So far you have provided no sources for your extra biblical claims.

if you do not agree with them, or want to refute them, do so. But I have better things to do than deal with people like you.

So, you refuse to respond to my arguments and refutations and are just going to keep repeating your initial arguments? I accept your admission of defeat.

Beyond this point, Pro introduces a slew of new arguments instead of rebutting the arguments I made.

No, Romans 1:26-27 does not condemn any and all homosexual sex for any reason. …..Instead, Paul chooses as his illustration, the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles, the sin of idolatry, so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, in chapter 3:23, everyone is guilty.

Even if this line of reasoning held, he chose to use various sins in his writing, including the sin of homosexuality, to make his point. When discussing the pagans, the fact of them committing homosexual acts is used as an example of how wicked they had become.

A complete reading of Romans 1 and 2, however, does not support your argument. Romans 1, in a nutshell, describes many sins. Romans 2 is a guide on how to use this information. It tells people to not be hypocrites and that humans casting judgment is wrong. However, it still leaves us with the clear impression that those violating the rules of Romans 1 will be judged bt the god figure.

That said, this is a new argument and ignores my prior rebuttals.


“That is the historical context, the religious context, the cultural context and the spiritual context of Romans 1. Idolatry is the focus of Paul's argument, not gays and lesbians.”

None of the context changes the fact that homosexuality is directly cited as being sinful and is used as an example of the kinds of wickedness you would see in pagans and idolators. You keep refusing to address my points and instead try introducing new arguments and rhetoric that are not relevant.

Let’s try making this even simpler. Explain why homosexual relations are explicitly listed as sinful.

The verses do not say it is sinful for pagans to have homosexual relations but not sinful for Hebrews to have homosexual relations. That wouldn’t even make sense. Why would homosexuality be sinful only if the partners are pagan? Why bother explicitly citing it as sinful if it is not actually sinful? Are you trying to say it was put there for no reason? The pagans also breathed, ate, got married, and had heterosexual sex, but none of these are listed as explicitly sinful. Only certain types of sex like bestiality and homosexuality are singled out and the only logical reason to do that is to tell the people what kind of sex is and is not forbidden.

Can you show me any verse saying that homosexual sex is only wrong if pagans are homosexuals? I already cited examples of things that are banned in certain contexts (like worship if done toward idols), but encouraged in others (like worship done toward the Hebrew god). Worship is not pagan specific, but when done toward pagan gods it becomes wicked.

Scripture cannot mean NOW
what it did not mean THEN.

If Paul was not describing committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in AD 58 when he wrote Romans, then it is wrong to insist that those verses are dealing with committed same sex partnerships now.

Terrible reasoning. By that logic, a Christian who gets their moral code from the Bible can only take a moral stance on issues directly addressed by the Bible, but it gets worse. You pulled a “but that’s Old Testament” which means you reject almost every rule in the Bible. You have essentially cut yourself off from having any sort of workable moral code.

The truth is, we can easily understand that he has told us that homosexual relations are sinful. He did not specify the type of relationship because it did not matter. All homosexual sex was forbidden in that passage regardless of who is engaged in it.

Now I will deal with your links to other people’s arguments. Still I was hoping you would provide a source for the extrabiblical claims.

One thing that is clear is that these arguments are contradictory. I suspect the reason for that is the authors are trying to force multiple verses that oppose the authors’ assumed conclusion to accept the conclusion.

Link 1: Mostly cherrypicked quotes that don’t actually support the conclusion. Aside from that, there are arguments similar to yours and my rebuttals work there too.

Link 2: An argument that Romans 1 was a kind of “gotcha” and Paul really just wanted to show people how judgmental they are. However, the text of Romans 2 makes it clear that Paul is telling the crowd that it is important that they not be hypocrites. He is not saying it is wrong to oppose the things condemned in Romans 1, rather he tells people they need to actually obey all the rules and truly believe them. He is also rejecting the idea of casting judgment to make yourself seem more holy, but he never even implies that the people engaged in the acts in Romans 1 will not be judged by God as sinful. This argument is fairly transparent to my eyes as it goes in with a conclusion and tries to force the verses to fit that conclusion.

Link 3: Same argument as Link 2

Link 4: Semantic game with one translation. Others make it clear that the verse refers to men abandoning sexual relations with women for sexual relations with men.

Link 5: The claim made here is that unless the Bible explicitly states something in the exact words the author would use, it doesn’t count. By that reasoning, most of the Bible is wasted space. Additionally, you listed many links to arguments on this site that rely on vague language in the Bible to refute verses that clearly state homosexual relations are abominations and those engaging in the relations are deserving of death. You cannot have it both ways.

Link 6: An attempt to rescue lesbians from condemnation by contrasting them with gays. The argument relies on a clear demonstration that male homosexuality is sinful so it can show how lesbian relations don’t meet the sin criteria.

Link 7: Dead link

Debate Round No. 4
blackliger777

Pro

blackliger777 forfeited this round.
V5RED

Con

So, to summarize. Pro started off with an argument that focused heavily on the Old Testament. I explained those passages and how it is clear that they were referring to restrictions on the Hebrew people. Pro never directly addressed my points in that regard and eventually decided that the Old Testament was irrelevant. I showed scripture that refuted that idea and even explained what is meant by Jesus' intention to fulfill the Law.

Pro also attempted to pass off Paul's clear condemnation of both male and female homosexuality by making it out to be a kind of "gotcha" argument. I explained that Romans 2 actually is a continuation where Paul, having outlined various sins now instructs the people how to use this information. In Romans 2, he is telling them that they must not be hypocrites and it is not their place to judge, God will do that.

I also addressed marriage by showing that a marriage requires copulation, something that is forbidden in a homosexual relationship, so homosexual marriage is, by default, forbidden.

Having established that the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality as sin and having established that marriage would not be allowed due to the prohibition on homosexual relations, I rest my case.

Vote Con. :)

Oh and I will once again point out that I am not anti homosexuality or anti gay marriage. Taking the side in a debate where I defend the proposition that such things are considered sinful by a religion does not mean I think they are wrong. To make that leap, I would have needed to also have taken the position of agreeing with the religion. I do not, and it was cheap of Pro to ask for an honest debate and then when it was pointed out that the Bible does, in fact, ban homosexuality and impose a death penalty, to label me a bigot.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ZachZimmey 8 months ago
ZachZimmey
blackliger777V5REDTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: More sources, pro forfeited