The Instigator
icetiger200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tstor
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

homosexuality isn't a sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
tstor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 83115
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

icetiger200

Pro

I'd like to reply from where we left off in the other forum if that's OK with you.

I said: Nah, the old covenant new covenant thing doesn't work, Matt 5: 17-20, means the leviticus law holds for the NT.

You said :That is not at all what the verses at Matthew 5:17-20 are saying. In fact, I would imagine that you would have a hard time finding a Biblical scholar that would agree with you. Without trying to break the balance of the discussion, we have to recognize the three types of laws described in the old covenant. These would be ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law. You seem to be concerned with the ceremonial laws. Since these laws were established to point forward toward the Christ, they were, therefore, no longer necessary. However, the principles are still required.

I said :No argument over 'zakar' what is your point here, because it's quite obscure.

You said: I apologize for not clearly stating my point. I completely misread what you were trying to say and therefore did not give a proper refutation. Which translation are you using to get the rendering of "she is ritually unclean"? Most all translations say something along the lines of:
"that is detestable." (NIV)

I said: 1 cor 6:9... if 1: 9-11 appears it's an error, no one's perfect, and spell checks sometimes do odd things. Though I might have been referencing 11: 14 re long hair being unattural, according to Saulus the liar. Not going back to check the word occurs in 1 cor 6: 9.

You said: Arsenokoitai"is the Greek word used in 6:9. That still does not fulfill my request for you to provide a concordance or lexicon that verifies your claim.

I said: Kan, Ken, and other variants are found in Greek and related languages, e.g. Turkish, as what is sometimes termed the diminutive, or familiar, in koine Greek in our passage under scrutiny, this gives ownership of the nature (makes it familliar) to the actor, so it is not physis (general nature) but personal nature, nature of the actor

You said:The same word that is in Romans 1:26 is used in Romans 11:21:
"For if God did not spare the"natural branches, he will not spare you either." (NIV)

In order to verify your claim, provide a concordance or lexicon that confirms your definition.

I said:You seem to misunderstand the comparison, the word 'physis' has a fluid meaning, hence context is important, as are modifications such as suffixes.

You said: Context is important, which is why I brought it up in my response.

I said : No: you still haven't got a reasonable source for the claim Arsenkoites translates as homosexual, the most viable translation from a reading of all ancient sources, would be rapist.

You said: I can list numerous sources. Try Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. However, I have yet to see you name a source that verifies your claim.

I said: There is no basis to regard homosexuality as a sin, based on the actual text of the bible.

You said: have yet to provide any reason to think that. The Bible makes it quite clear. I do not try and read into the text.

I said: Saul twice describes David and Jonathan as married, once with his blessing, 1 sam 18: 20-21 and once in anger, 1 sam 20: 30 Jonathan stripping naked in front of David is a bit of a give away too.

You said: 1 Samuel 18:20-21:
Now Saul's daughter Mi'chal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him. So Saul said: "I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philis'tines may come upon him." Saul then said to David a second time: "You will form a marriage alliance with me [Or "will become my son-in-law."] today." (NW)

1 Samuel 20:30:
Then Saul became enraged with Jon'athan, and he said to him: "You son of a rebellious woman, do you think I do not know that you are choosing to side with the son of Jes'se, to your own shame and to the shame of your mother?" (NW)

So where are reading that David and Jonathan are married?

I said: Daniel 1: 9 "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

Problem is "favour and tender love" translates "chesed v'rachamim"

Cesed translates is "mercy". V'rachamim is plural and can mean eather: "mercy" or "physical love". It's unlikely the Hebrew reads "mercy and mercy." Therefore "mercy and physical love" is the only viable translation.

You said: The Hebrew word for "favor" is"checed. The Hebrew word for "tender love" is"racham. Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance do not EVER translateracham"to mean "physical love."

And here was my argument

"We can sum up the majority of your last reply in two words. Strawman argument. Though we might also note its tending "towards shotgun argumentation.

Its irtellevent whether dictionaries and lectionaries give definitions if the evidence does not support those definitions. "And there is no historical nor linguistic evidence that supports the definition of Arsenkoiti as 'homosexual'. so your argument resolves to a third fallacy. that of appeal to authority.

Likewise with "Tobeha, the variety of activities and situations to which the word is applied does not support the translation, 'abomination' or 'detestible', howver 'ritually unclean' is entirely supportable.

No its not "'Physuken', used in Romans "11: 21, thats Phusin. The only place in th NT in which Physiken is used is Romans 1: 26-28

Though I will concede I must have been thinking of something else when I referenced the suffix 'Ken. This is incorrect, the suffix is 'En' "the consonant merely links the syllables. En makes the tense active, and as its active this gives possession to the actor.

https://books.google.co.uk......

1 Samuel 18: 20-21 your translation is not supported, the KJV says "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain" unfortunately 'in the one of the' is an insertion. the actual text translates literally as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, twice" and Johnathan is the only other child of Saul, David has a relationship with at that point. The other daughter having been married off to someone else.

1 Sam 20: 30, again your translation is off, its not "choosing to side with" but "Choosing you the son of Jesse, to the shame of yopur mothers nakedness" which is a different connotation entirely."
Hmm... Strongs concordance has racham as: "7355 racham 'raw-kham' a primitive root; to fondle; by implication, to love. What is that if not physical love?

Again with Matthew 5:17-20, your appeal to authority doesn't support your case there are many scholars "that have and do, support from this verse, the interpretation that the OT law still holds. And a literal reading of the text supports this too.
tstor

Con

1) False Claims
I have not provided one single straw man argument, as I have directly replied to each of your claims. I have not made any assumptions about what you think or have claimed that you made implications toward something. Those are pretty much the two surefire ways of someone making a straw man argument. If I have made a straw man argument, please feel free to directly quote me to prove it.


As for your claim of me using a shotgun argument, I once again disagree. I have directly responded to each of your claims. I have not peppered in extra arguments or material.


2*) Defining Arsenokoitai/
Arsenokoites
Lexicons are extremely important when conducting a lexical analysis. I have provided the proof that all modern Greek lexicons define arsenokoitai/arsenokoites as "homosexuals"/"homosexual activities." On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single argument as to why all Greek lexicons, to my knowledge, are incorrect. I am more than willing to admit if I am wrong, but you have not made any refutation to the lexical definitions given in Englishman's Concordance, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc.


The Hebrew word toebah is always translated as "abomination," "loathsome," "detestable," etc. It is never translated as "ritually unclean" in any of its 117 occurrences in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs has this to say:

toebah – (n) abomination
2. ethical sense:
b. to God and his people: unchasity Leviticus 18:22

4*) Parsing Physiken

I was not claiming that "physuken" is used in Romans 11:21, as that is not even a real Greek transliteration. Physin is used in Romans 11:21, which means "nature." Physiken is used in Romans 1:26-27 to mean "natural."


Your Google Books source does not bring anything up on my computer other than the Google Books homepage. So I cannot make any comments on the source itself. However, your use of the suffix to make physiken in Romans 1:26-27 an active voice is not correct. Englishman's Concordance rightly parses physiken in Romans 1:26-27 as an adjective accusative feminine singular. It does not declare it to be an active voice.


5) Examining 1 Samuel 18:20-21

Why is my translation not supported? If anything, it agrees with what you said. The KJV is one of the few that disagrees with what you said. As for your conclusion that Johnathan must be the one he is talking about, read the text again:

"So Saul said: 'I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philistines may come upon him.' Saul then said to David a second time: 'You will form a marriage alliance with me today.'" (NW)

The reason why it is the "second time" is because it is the second time the declaration had been made. 1 Samuel 18:21 is in reference to his daughter Michal, which is explained in verse 20:

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him." (NW)

As for my translation of 1 Samuel 20:30, it is also correct. You made no argument against it other than what you think it should be. If you have a problem with my translation, then prove it to be incorrect in the Hebrew.

6*) Defining Racham
You are incorrect in regards to racham. This word does not mean "to fondle." Rather, it means "compassion." Your definition is in regards to lexical number 7355, which is not in Daniel 1:9. The lexical number referencing "tender love" in verse 9 is lexical number 7356.


7) Examining Matthew 5:17-20
Name one scholar that supports the claim that ceremonial laws, outside of principle, are to be continued to this day. Specifically in regards to Matthew 5:17-20. I am not appealing to higher authority, but I am appealing to what the Bible actually teaches.

Conclusion:
Most of your arguments are either mistaken, dishonest, or not supported by sources. All refutations to my claims have been addressed and proven to insufficiant.

Sources:
[2*] http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...
[3*] http://biblehub.com...

[4*] http://biblehub.com...
[6*] http://biblehub.com...
Debate Round No. 1
icetiger200

Pro

icetiger200 forfeited this round.
tstor

Con

Extended. Heading number three added (was accidently deleted in last round).

1) False Claims
I have not provided one single straw man argument, as I have directly replied to each of your claims. I have not made any assumptions about what you think or have claimed that you made implications toward something. Those are pretty much the two surefire ways of someone making a straw man argument. If I have made a straw man argument, please feel free to directly quote me to prove it.


As for your claim of me using a shotgun argument, I once again disagree. I have directly responded to each of your claims. I have not peppered in extra arguments or material.


2*) Defining Arsenokoitai/
Arsenokoites
Lexicons are extremely important when conducting a lexical analysis. I have provided the proof that all modern Greek lexicons define arsenokoitai/arsenokoites as "homosexuals"/"homosexual activities." On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single argument as to why all Greek lexicons, to my knowledge, are incorrect. I am more than willing to admit if I am wrong, but you have not made any refutation to the lexical definitions given in Englishman's Concordance, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc.


2*) Defining Toebah

The Hebrew word toebah is always translated as "abomination," "loathsome," "detestable," etc. It is never translated as "ritually unclean" in any of its 117 occurrences in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs has this to say:

toebah – (n) abomination
2. ethical sense:
b. to God and his people: unchasity Leviticus 18:22

4*) Parsing Physiken

I was not claiming that "physuken" is used in Romans 11:21, as that is not even a real Greek transliteration. Physin is used in Romans 11:21, which means "nature." Physiken is used in Romans 1:26-27 to mean "natural."


Your Google Books source does not bring anything up on my computer other than the Google Books homepage. So I cannot make any comments on the source itself. However, your use of the suffix to make physiken in Romans 1:26-27 an active voice is not correct. Englishman's Concordance rightly parses physiken in Romans 1:26-27 as an adjective accusative feminine singular. It does not declare it to be an active voice.


5) Examining 1 Samuel 18:20-21

Why is my translation not supported? If anything, it agrees with what you said. The KJV is one of the few that disagrees with what you said. As for your conclusion that Johnathan must be the one he is talking about, read the text again:

"So Saul said: 'I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philistines may come upon him.' Saul then said to David a second time: 'You will form a marriage alliance with me today.'" (NW)

The reason why it is the "second time" is because it is the second time the declaration had been made. 1 Samuel 18:21 is in reference to his daughter Michal, which is explained in verse 20:

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him." (NW)

As for my translation of 1 Samuel 20:30, it is also correct. You made no argument against it other than what you think it should be. If you have a problem with my translation, then prove it to be incorrect in the Hebrew.

6*) Defining Racham
You are incorrect in regards to racham. This word does not mean "to fondle." Rather, it means "compassion." Your definition is in regards to lexical number 7355, which is not in Daniel 1:9. The lexical number referencing "tender love" in verse 9 is lexical number 7356.


7) Examining Matthew 5:17-20
Name one scholar that supports the claim that ceremonial laws, outside of principle, are to be continued to this day. Specifically in regards to Matthew 5:17-20. I am not appealing to higher authority, but I am appealing to what the Bible actually teaches.

Conclusion:
Most of your arguments are either mistaken, dishonest, or not supported by sources. All refutations to my claims have been addressed and proven to insufficiant.

Sources:
[2*] http://biblehub.com......
http://biblehub.com......
[3*] http://biblehub.com......

[4*] http://biblehub.com......
[6*] http://biblehub.com......
Debate Round No. 2
icetiger200

Pro

icetiger200 forfeited this round.
tstor

Con

Extended. Heading number three added (was not changed to "3" in the last round).

1) False Claims
I have not provided one single straw man argument, as I have directly replied to each of your claims. I have not made any assumptions about what you think or have claimed that you made implications toward something. Those are pretty much the two surefire ways of someone making a straw man argument. If I have made a straw man argument, please feel free to directly quote me to prove it.


As for your claim of me using a shotgun argument, I once again disagree. I have directly responded to each of your claims. I have not peppered in extra arguments or material.


2*) Defining Arsenokoitai/
Arsenokoites
Lexicons are extremely important when conducting a lexical analysis. I have provided the proof that all modern Greek lexicons define arsenokoitai/arsenokoites as "homosexuals"/"homosexual activities." On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single argument as to why all Greek lexicons, to my knowledge, are incorrect. I am more than willing to admit if I am wrong, but you have not made any refutation to the lexical definitions given in Englishman's Concordance, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc.


3*) Defining Toebah

The Hebrew word toebah is always translated as "abomination," "loathsome," "detestable," etc. It is never translated as "ritually unclean" in any of its 117 occurrences in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs has this to say:

toebah – (n) abomination
2. ethical sense:
b. to God and his people: unchasity Leviticus 18:22

4*) Parsing Physiken

I was not claiming that "physuken" is used in Romans 11:21, as that is not even a real Greek transliteration. Physin is used in Romans 11:21, which means "nature." Physiken is used in Romans 1:26-27 to mean "natural."


Your Google Books source does not bring anything up on my computer other than the Google Books homepage. So I cannot make any comments on the source itself. However, your use of the suffix to make physiken in Romans 1:26-27 an active voice is not correct. Englishman's Concordance rightly parses physiken in Romans 1:26-27 as an adjective accusative feminine singular. It does not declare it to be an active voice.


5) Examining 1 Samuel 18:20-21

Why is my translation not supported? If anything, it agrees with what you said. The KJV is one of the few that disagrees with what you said. As for your conclusion that Johnathan must be the one he is talking about, read the text again:

"So Saul said: 'I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philistines may come upon him.' Saul then said to David a second time: 'You will form a marriage alliance with me today.'" (NW)

The reason why it is the "second time" is because it is the second time the declaration had been made. 1 Samuel 18:21 is in reference to his daughter Michal, which is explained in verse 20:

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him." (NW)

As for my translation of 1 Samuel 20:30, it is also correct. You made no argument against it other than what you think it should be. If you have a problem with my translation, then prove it to be incorrect in the Hebrew.

6*) Defining Racham
You are incorrect in regards to racham. This word does not mean "to fondle." Rather, it means "compassion." Your definition is in regards to lexical number 7355, which is not in Daniel 1:9. The lexical number referencing "tender love" in verse 9 is lexical number 7356.


7) Examining Matthew 5:17-20
Name one scholar that supports the claim that ceremonial laws, outside of principle, are to be continued to this day. Specifically in regards to Matthew 5:17-20. I am not appealing to higher authority, but I am appealing to what the Bible actually teaches.

Conclusion:
Most of your arguments are either mistaken, dishonest, or not supported by sources. All refutations to my claims have been addressed and proven to insufficiant.

Sources:
[2*] http://biblehub.com.........
http://biblehub.com.........
[3*] http://biblehub.com.........

[4*] http://biblehub.com.........
[6*] http://biblehub.com.........
Debate Round No. 3
icetiger200

Pro

icetiger200 forfeited this round.
tstor

Con

Extended.
Debate Round No. 4
icetiger200

Pro

icetiger200 forfeited this round.
tstor

Con

Extended.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
So, Pro initiated a debate, and immediately gave up????
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
icetiger200:

You are not the brightest apple on the tree are you now? The Bible, if you did not know, is written in masculine form but the same goes for women as Romans 1:26-27 explains.

Romans 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gaue them vp vnto vile affections: for euen their women did change the naturall vse into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leauing the naturall vse of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another, men with men working that which is vnseemely, and receiuing in themselues that recompense of their errour which was meet.

Also, if homosexuality is not going against the laws of The Most High God, why were those found in homosexuality put to death???
Posted by tstor 1 year ago
tstor
Somehow the heading for 3 got deleted. My source for 3* is in regards to defining toebah.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
If you are a "robot" it could be..If you are a human..You would not care about it...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
icetiger200tstorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
icetiger200tstorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
icetiger200tstorTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture... Pro's forfeiture led to an overwhelming amount of unrefuted evidence for Con