premarital sex shouldn't be considered wrong per the old testament for males
Debate Rounds (3)
there's no evidence to say otherwise
adultery is defined as cheating on one's spouse. even if it was just general sexual immorality, that doesn't indicate that premarital sex is sexually immoral. there's complete sections dedicated to sexual sins in the old testament and no mention of premarital sex.
that deuteronomy quote is about laying with another man's wife, not banning premarital sex.
I will show how the new testament scriptures reveal the old testament. Malachi 3:6 ("I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.)
1. Matthew 5:28 (But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.) this is from Jesus a.k.a. God in flesh. This is relevant to prove what lust is. After all you won't willingly want to have pre-marital sex with someone if you don't lust after them.
2. John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) This scripture proves that Jesus Christ was around even before the old testament was written making his words in the new testament relevant to the old testament. If you don't believe that the new testament is relevant to the old i can refer you to Malachi 3:6 ("I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.)
3. In conclusion I have proved that the old testament does prove that any form of lust is sinful, pre-marital sex is lust, due to the fact that Jesus himself says so and also due to the fact that God never changes. If Jesus held this view that lust is always wrong, it means that it was wrong even in the old testament.
By the way, I don't understand why you are trying to make this argument in the first place. with all due respect this argument is completely in its entirety is useless. The bible says Romans 8:2 (because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.). The old testament laws no longer apply because Jesus died for our sins and gave us redemption. I am curious to know why you would want to argue this in the first place.
con had insufficient basis in the OTestament so he had to go to the new. that shows how weak his basis is. plus what if you are a Jew and dont accept Jesus' clarification or addition as one may see it? i'm just arguing from the old testament alone, so any other additions are outside the scope of this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Well, bad grammar on both sides. The only sources are from the bible... Although that's a clear win for Con, I don't feel quoting the bible here really counts as a "source" - plus Pro didn't have anything to source. Both suck on spelling and grammar. In regards to arguments, Con failed to establish any point where it states it, however, I'd like to point out that this is a reversal of the burden of evidence. Pro failed to establish it is NOT mentioned anywhere. None-the-less, I give it to Pro (if for no other reason than Con accepted the burden).
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.