The Instigator
jrardin12
Con (against)
The Contender
primeministerJoshua812
Pro (for)

Biblical Reason Against Homosexuality

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
jrardin12 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,245 times Debate No: 117738
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Con

I would love to debate you on this. I am a Baptist and believe that God did not intend for homosexual marriage as seen from Eden. I would like you to start the argument and see what you have to say before I respond.
primeministerJoshua812

Pro

As a Bisexual and as a Christian Apologist I have had to deal first hand with the Bible and Homosexuality and has forced me to look deeper and more critically into the traditional structure of Christian marriage law. I make the case for Biblical support for homosexuality.

1. Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that good trees bear good fruit (Matthew 7:15-20), But the church"s rejection of same-sex relationships has caused tremendous, Needless suffering to lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And transgender (LGBT) people.

2. Sexual orientation is a new concept, One the Christian tradition hasn"t addressed. Many Christians draw on our faith"s traditions to shape our beliefs, But the concept of sexual orientation is new. Before recent decades, Same-sex behaviour was understood along the lines of gluttony or drunkenness"as a vice of excess anyone might be prone to"not as the expression of a sexual orientation. The Christian tradition hasn"t spoken to the modern issue of LGBT people and their relationships.

3. Celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate. The Bible honours celibacy as a good way of living"Jesus was celibate, After all"but it also makes clear that celibacy must be a voluntary choice made by those who have the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7-9, Matthew 19:11). Requiring that all gay people remain celibate because their sexuality is "broken" is at odds with the Bible"s teachings on celibacy.

4. Sodom and Gomorrah involved an attempted gang rape, Not a loving relationship. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is commonly assumed to have been the result of God"s wrath against homosexuality, But the only form of same-sex behaviour described in the story is an attempted gang rape (Genesis 19:5)"nothing like the loving, Committed relationships that are widespread today. The Bible explicitly condemns Sodom for its arrogance, Inhospitality, And apathy toward the poor, But never for same-sex behaviour.

5. The prohibitions in Leviticus don"t apply to Christians. Leviticus condemns male same-sex intercourse (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), But the entire Old Testament law code has never applied to Christians in light of Christ"s death. Leviticus also condemns eating pork, Rabbit, Or shellfish, Cutting hair at the sides of one"s head, And having sex during a woman"s menstrual period"none of which Christians continue to observe.

6. Paul condemns same-sex lust, Not love. Like other ancient writers, Paul described the same-sex behaviour as the result of an excessive sexual desire on the part of people who could be content with opposite-sex relationships (Romans 1:26-27). He doesn"t have long-term, Loving same-sex relationships in view. And while he describes the same-sex behaviour as "unnatural, " he also says men having long hair goes against nature (1 Corinthians 11:14), And most Christians read that as a reference to cultural conventions.

7. The term "homosexual" didn"t exist until 1892. Some modern Bible translations say that "homosexuals" will not inherit the kingdom of God (depending on the translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10), But neither the concept nor the word for people with exclusive same-sex attraction existed before the late 19th century. While the Bible rejects lustful same-sex behaviour, That isn"t close to a condemnation of all gay people and relationships.

8. Marriage is about commitment. Marriage often involves procreation, But according to the New Testament, It"s based on something deeper: a lifelong commitment to a partner. Marriage is even compared to the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:21-33), And while the language used is opposite-sex, The core principles apply just as well to same-sex couples.

9. Human beings are relational. From the beginning of Genesis, Human beings are described as having a need for relationship, Just as God himself is relational (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18). Sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person and to condemn LGBT people"s sexuality outright damages their ability to be in a relationship with all people"and with God.

10. Faithful Christians are already embracing LGBTQ members of the church. From denominations like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA) to increasing numbers of evangelical churches across the country, Christians across the country are already putting their commitment to LGBT equality in action. They"re showing their fellow believers what it looks like to be a faithful Christian who fully affirms LGBT Christians.

I await a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Con

Firstly, It should be noted how unambiguously Genesis sets forth God"s pattern for sexual union:

"But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, And while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man. "
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, And they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:20"25, My italics).

The message is unequivocal. Man is to be united to woman because she came from man. Man did not come from man and is not to be united to man; woman did not come from woman and is not to be united to woman. Therefore (NIV: "That is why") male is to be united to female. Heterosexual marriage, Then, Is a creation ordinance.

In Romans Chapter 1, The apostle Paul teaches that homosexuality is God"sjudgement upon those who have suppressed the truth about God and how His nature and will are revealed through His creation:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, Who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, Because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, Namely, His eternal power and divine nature, Have been clearly perceived, Ever since the creation of the world, In the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, They did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, But they became futile in their thinking, And their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, They became fools, And exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, To the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:18"27).

It is difficult to miss the allusion to the first chapter of Genesis, Especially when compared with the Greek of the Septuagint:

"And they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of the image of a mortal human and of birds and four-footed animals and of reptiles" (Romans 1:23, Gagnon"s translation, Italics added. )

"Let us make a human according to our image and likeness; and let them rule over the birds " and the cattle " and the reptiles " " (Genesis 1:26, Gagnon"s translation of the Septuagint, Italics added).

Moreover, Paul"s use of the Greek words for "male" and "female" rather than "man" and "woman" again make clear that he isdrawing from the Genesis text:

"Even their females [Greek thēleiai] exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature; and likewise also the males [Greek arsenes], Having left behind the natural use of the female [Greek thēleias], Were inflamed with their yearning for one another, Males with males [Greek arsenes en arsenin]" (Romans 1:26"27, Gagnon"s translation, Italics added).

"And God made the human; according to the image of God he made him; male [Greek arsēn] and female [Greek thēlu] he made them. " (Genesis 1:27, Gagnon"s translation of the Septuagint, Italics added). 3

These inter-textual echoes (Genesis U96; Romans) make transparent that Paul"s indictment of homosexual acts is not concerned only with exploitative same sex relationships, Or explicitly idolatrous sex, As some claim, But homosexual acts in general. This is because his objection to same-sex relationships is based on their being contrary to nature and a rejection of the creation ordinance, I. E. That sexual union was intended only for heterosexual couples. Moreover, The fact that the men "were inflamed with their yearning for one another" indicates that the sexual acts being condemned here were consensual.

Secondly, There are two unambiguous prohibitions of homosexual acts in the book of Leviticus:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).
Again, It cannot be argued that these refer only to exploitative or "idolatrous sex" because the word translated "male" is the Hebrew zakar (male, I. E. Adult man) rather than na"ar (boy or youth) or qadesh (homosexual cult prostitute). Moreover, Leviticus 20:13 clearly refers to consensual relationships as both parties are to be punished.

Some claim that these restrictions relate only to antiquated purity rules associated with the Jewish ceremonial law and therefore do not apply to Christians. This again, However, Is unsustainable as the New Testament undoubtedly refers to these Levitical passages in its denouncing homosexual practices. This is particularly apparent in the apostle Paul"s choice of the Greek word arsenokoitai (men lying with males):

"Neither the sexually immoral, Nor idolaters, Nor adulterers, Nor men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], Nor thieves, Nor the greedy, Nor drunkards, Nor revilers, Nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10).

" " the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, For the ungodly and sinners, For the unholy and profane, For those who strike their fathers and mothers, For murderers, The sexually immoral, Men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], Enslavers, Liars, Perjurers, And whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:9"10).

The word arsenokoitai is undoubtedly derived from the Greek words used in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: arsēn (male) and koitē (lying). It is a term never found in pagan literature and, In choosing it, Paul can only have had Leviticus in mind. This makes clear that the Old Testament prohibition related to the moral law, Not the ceremoniallaw. It is also significant that the word, Aschēmosunē, Used in Romans 1:27 (nakedness, Indecent exposure, Indecency), Is used twenty-four times in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21 and the word, Akatharsia, Used in Romans 1:24 (uncleanness, Impurity), Appears in the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 18:19; 20:21, 25.

Further confirmation that the Levitical passages refer to the moral law is found in the way the 1 Timothy passage echoes moral principles given to the Israelites in the Ten Commandments. Even the order in which they are listed is the same (Exodus20 U96; 1 Timothy):

Commandment1 Timothy 1:9"10
FifthHonour one"s parents"those who strike their fathers and mothers"
SixthDo not murder "murderers"
SeventhDo not commit adultery "the sexually immoral"
EighthDo not steal"enslavers" (literally "men-stealers")
NinthDo not bear false witness"liars", "perjurers"
primeministerJoshua812

Pro

Good morning and thank you for a response.

This is true what you have said about Genesis but it can only be applied to the heterosexuals. This is further supported by the fact that Celibacy is a gift and not a mandate. Matthew 19:9-12 1 Corinthians 7 because a homosexual cannot be in a relationship with the opposite sex the Christian is left with two pathways. The first is that the Bible contradicts itself and the second is that homosexuality is not a sin even if it is simply by concession as seen with the divorce laws of the OT.

I repeat point number 6 in my first post: Paul condemns same-sex lust, Not love. Like other ancient writers, Paul described the same-sex behaviour as the result of an excessive sexual desire on the part of people who could be content with opposite-sex relationships (Romans 1:26-27). He doesn't have long-term, Loving same-sex relationships in view. And while he describes the same-sex behaviour as "unnatural, " he also says men having long hair goes against nature (1 Corinthians 11:14), And most Christians read that as a reference to cultural conventions. Paul makes no mention of a relationship that had love, Commitment and faithfulness as God intended. Paul's condemnation us solely based on a burst of excess and lust. In the Ancient world, Same-sex behaviour occurred mainly between men and adolescent boys, Between masters and slaves or with prostitutes. Most of the men of who practice this were married to women and thus the cultural norm was that same-sex behaviour stemmed from lust that was out of control and vices like drunkenness.

Okay, So I addressed the Paul arguments which means that I will argue that this is part of the Jewish Ceremonial law just like wearing two different fabrics and planting different crops side by side. However just remember when you are using Paul who argues that homosexuality is unnatural just remember that he also said that for men to wear their hair long is unnatural a practice common at the time. However, I will expound on 1Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10

While Paul did refer to homosexuality. The world in which he lived in did not define homosexuality as we do in today/s world as I have mentioned above. His Homosexuality was based on lust and excessive vices, Not the God-ordained view of marriage that includes monogamy, Commitment and so forth. Finally, I wouldn't take Paul's babblings as law whether it's on homosexuality or the role of women in the leadership of the Church.

I leave with the words of Matthew Vines a Christian and a homosexual who I have learned a lot from including almost all of the arguments I used for this debate. He says: "The Bible never addresses the isseus of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage. So there is no reason why faithful Christians their gay brothers and sisters. It's time! "

Blessings.
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Con

The purpose of marriage is one. . . To have kids. That was the command to Adam and Eve. "Be fruitful and multiply. " This command is not for those who decide to be celibate. God did not tell Adam to be fruitful and multiply before Eve was made, But after. Therefore the purpose of marriage is to create a godly seed and ultimately, The Seed. So God created marriage for the purpose of multiplying and we know homosexual marriage cannot fulfill this commandment.

Some one who decides to live a celibate life is from a choice to do so. We see this in the way that Paul says that it is good for man not to touch a woman. And he tells those who decide to be celibate that, "If they cannot contain, Let them marry. " So we see that this was a choice, Not just a gift.

As for men and long hair the Bible not only says that it is unnatural, But also shameful. However, It does not say it is abominable as homosexuality. Now the Christians that think long hair is a cultural convention have to show me in Scripture why that is so. There was only one man in the Bible that had long hair. This was Samson, Who was a Nazarite for life, Yet if you see his life, It was one of disobedience the whole time and a false assumption that his hair gave him power when in fact it was God. Now the Christians who defend long hair say that it was because Christ was a Nazarite. However this statement is false because Christ was a Nazarene, Someone from Nazareth. A Nazarite was someone who was doing the Nazarite vows and one of the vows was to not cut your hair during the period of the vow. Only with Samson do we see anyone doing the vow for life and also Samson was the only one commanded to do it. However, We see Paul taking this vow in Acts. Yet, Before he took the vow he shaved his head so that by the time his vow was completed his hair would not have caused him shame. If I was someone smart I would not want to take the word of a Christian who says long hair is fine on men when he can't tell the difference between a Nazarite and a Nazarene. Furthermore, Mixing of fabrics is not an abomination nor is eating pig.

Also in Paul's writing when he talks about marriage he refers always to husband and wife. Even further, Wife is always her and husband is always him. If you can give me one verse where Paul talks about marriage in a he and he or she and she situation let me know.

Then we come to the issue of abomination. God never gives any slack to men and men sexual practices at all. If God meant that it was abomination for homosexual marriages in the Old Testament, But not in the New Testament then what about Proverbs 6:16-19: These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, Seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, A lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, Feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. Does that mean that in the New Testament we can be proud, Liers, Murderers, Thinkers of immoral acts, Always causing trouble, False witnesses and gossipers? Of course not. My Bible teaches that He never changes, Thus when He says that men committing sexual actions with other men is an abomination He means it forever.

They Bible talks a lot about false teachers who corrupt the Word of God.

My last point is that the sexual revolution has seen an increase in Christian persecution, Why? Because the sexual revolution is rebellion against the fundamental principles of God's Word.
primeministerJoshua812

Pro

I repeat point number 8 and 9 of my first post: 8. Marriage is about commitment. Marriage often involves procreation, But according to the New Testament, It"s based on something deeper: a lifelong commitment to a partner. Marriage is even compared to the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:21-33), And while the language used is opposite-sex, The core principles apply just as well to same-sex couples. 9. Human beings are relational. From the beginning of Genesis, Human beings are described as having a need for relationship, Just as God himself is relational (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18). Sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person and to condemn LGBT people"s sexuality outright damages their ability to be in a relationship with all people and with God. Also what about families who are infertile are they sinning if they don't reproduce should the person who is fertile divorce the unfertile individual and find someone else? Of course not! This shows that such command is only for fertile heterosexual people.

On Celibacy and Homosexuality. I took an oath of celibacy because I have a general disinterest in marital and sexual relationships but not all LGBTQ people have that and the Bible says that celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate again I repeat from my first post point 3: 3. Celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate. The Bible honours celibacy as a good way of living"Jesus was celibate, After all, But it also makes clear that celibacy must be a voluntary choice made by those who have the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7-9, Matthew 19:11). Requiring that all gay people remain celibate because their sexuality is "broken" is at odds with the Bible"s teachings on celibacy. The gift affects the choice and without the gift, The choice should not be made.

On long hair. What is sinful about long hair? Tell me and I won't refer to it as a cultural convention. On pig eating and wearing two different fabrics. The point here is that this was a ceremonial sin that does not and never has applied to Christians due to the obsolete law fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

On abomination terms yet's take a closer look. I borrow from Matthew Vines and his views on the subject. The term Abomination can be applied to a broad range of subjects that Christians don't consider to be applicable to themselves for an example just read Deuteronomy 14:3-21 which addressed things like eating pork. Abomination is a term used to describe practices which are foreign and not distinctively part of Israeli ceremonial law. We see this in Genesis 43:32 and Exodus 8:26 where the Israelities could not eat with the Egyptians as well as offer sacrifices Yahweh near Pharaoh's palace because the Egyptians considered it an abomination. The nature of the term abomination is cultural specific because it deals with the cultural and religious difference held between the Jews and their neighbours. It is not a statement about intrinsic goodness and intrinsic evil. I will deal now with something you didn't bring up which is the objection from the death penalty mentioned in Leviticus. Should we regard homosexuality as sinful because God gives it the death penalty? The answer is no and here's why. The death penalty was instituted because of all the issues facing was soon to be a sovereign state and thus maintaining order and cohesiveness was of paramount importance and so punishments were to be harsh. This includes non-moral issues such as working on the Sabbath and charging interest on loans as seen in Exodus 35:2 and Ezekiel 18. In other words just because something gets the death penalty in OT doesn't mean it should be viewed as sinful as there is too much variance for that to be a consistent and effective approach. The default Christian approach has been to see the "old law" as being fulfilled by Christ and there is no good reason why that can't be said about homosexuality prohibitions in Leviticus.

God's law in the OT was made for Israel temporarily. Christ fulfilled the law and thus it is obsolete. The sexual revolution and its tension with Christianity are based on a mockery of the traditionalist interpretation and lack of contextualization. Also, I am not a false teacher but a rational agent who has taken great interest on this subject and has come out with my mind changed from its original position after doing my "homework" if you will.

Blessings.
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Con

Vines employs an old, Subtle strategy, Asking "Did God actually say? " (Gen 3:1). Calling for a reexamination of the Bible"s teaching, Vines doesn"t come out swinging but wooing. He wins sympathy by telling his own heart-wrenching story of not wanting to admit his own same-sex attraction. His father even told him the day he "came out" was the worst day of his life. With readers softened up by sentiment and compassion, Vines asks them to reconsider the Bible"s teaching.
Tellingly, Vines does not encourage his readers to be like the Bereans in the Book of Acts"commended for testing all things by the Scriptures. Simply put, He can"t afford to have readers test his arguments
2. Sexual orientation is a new concept

If the modern concept of sexual orientation is to be taken as a brute fact, Then the Bible simply cannot be trusted to understand what it means to be human, To reveal what God intends for us sexually, Or to define sin in any coherent manner. The modern notion of sexual orientation is, As a matter of fact, Exceedingly modern. It is also a concept without any definitive meaning. Effectively, It is used now both culturally and morally to argue about sexual attraction and desire. As a matter of fact, Attraction and desire are the only indicators upon which the modern notion of sexual orientation are premised.
When he begins his book, Vines argues that experience should not drive our interpretation of the Bible. But it is his experience of what he calls a gay sexual orientation that drives every word of this book. It is this experiential issue that drives him to relativize text after text and to argue that the Bible really doesn"t speak directly to his sexual identity at all, Since the inspired human authors of Scripture were ignorant of the modern gay experience.
Of what else were they ignorant? Vines claims to hold to a "high view" of the Bible and to believe that "all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life", But the modern concept of sexual orientation functions as a much higher authority in his thinking and in his argument.
This leads to a haunting question. What else does the Bible not know about what it means to be human? If the Bible cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about us in every respect, How can we trust it to reveal our salvation?
This points to the greater issue at stake here " the gospel. Vines"s argument does not merely relativize the Bible"s authority, It leaves us without any authoritative revelation of what sin is. And without an authoritative (and clearly understandable) revelation of human sin, We cannot know why we need a savior, Or why Jesus Christ died. Furthermore, To tell someone that what the Bible reveals as sin is not sin, We tell them that they do not need Christ for that. Is that not exactly what Paul was determined not to do when he wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? Could the stakes be any higher than that? This controversy is not merely about sex, It is about salvation.

3. Celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate, But a gift.

Vines begs the question here, Though he would not admit that he does so. The Bible, As we have said, Renders homosexual behavior sinful. There is no context, However covenantal, However relational, In which Scripture countenances morally permissible homosexual activity. As the surrounding chapters make clear, Scripture deals with same-sex behavior in exclusively negative terms. This has major implications for Christians who feel such impulses. It means, Contra what Vines argues, That whether such persons experience the "gift" of celibacy or a sense of calling to this state, They are of necessity and for all their life called to abstain from homosexual behavior. This is true whether one is sexually attracted to the same sex, Non-humans, Multiple people at once, Preteens or any other perverse sexual attachment.
The apostle Paul disciplined his body and kept it under control as we all must (1 Cor 9:27). Vines argues that such a state is both harmful and essentially impossible (18), But the testimony of countless Christians proves otherwise. Whether or not one marries, Self-control over all desire, Including immoral sexual desire of either a homosexual or heterosexual kind, Is God"s Spirit-shaped gift to all who trust Christ (Gal 5:22-23). Celibacy must be practiced by those who are tempted to give vent to any sinful, Fallen desire. Without holiness "no one will see the Lord, " the author of Hebrews reminds us (12:14).

4. Sodom and Gomorrah involved an attempted gang rape, Not a loving relationship

Rape is obviously a violation of what God intended, But that does not mean that the same-sex aspect of Sodom"s sin was not also a violation of God"s intention. One thing you fail to notice is the significant connection between Genesis 19, The two passages in Leviticus and Ezekiel 16:48"50. Ezekiel, Who makes abundant use of the book of Leviticus, Describes various sins of Sodom (Ezek 16:48"49), Then concludes, "They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, When I saw it" (16:50). This indicates that the "abomination" committed by Sodom led to their destruction. Ezekiel"s reference to Sodom"s "abomination" uses the singular form of the term toevah, And that term is used in the singular only twice in the book of Leviticus, When same-sex intercourse is called an abomination in 18:22, And when the death penalty is prescribed for it in 20:13. The four other instances of the term in Leviticus are in the plural, Making it likely that Ezekiel uses the term from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to reference the same-sex intentions of the men of Sodom. Jude also speaks of "sexual immorality" and the Sodomites" pursuit of "strange flesh" (Jude 7). Vines tries to explain away this mention of "strange flesh" as referring "to the attempted rape of angels instead of humans" (69). But the Genesis narrative refers to the angels as "men" (Gen18:22), And that is how the inhabitants of Sodom designate them as well (19:5). For those who adopt the sexual complementarity taught in the Bible, The violation of the order of creation at Sodom is an abomination (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Ezek 16:50). That abomination is only intensified by the angelic identity of the men the Sodomites intend to abuse. 2 Peter 2:6"10 also treats the sin of Sodom as sexual immorality rather than as oppression, Violence, A failure of hospitality or some other kind of sin.

The rest I will add to the comments.
primeministerJoshua812

Pro

Sorry, It has taken me so long to respond I have been very busy.

Mr. Vines "sympathy" story does not disprove or weaken his arguments and so I see no reason why you need to bring it up.

Mr. Vines point here is that our understanding of sexuality is different from that of Antiquity which affected the writing of intellectuals of that age. This is confirmed by the fact that the main views on homosexuality stemmed from Pederasty, Prostitution, And sexual slavery. Paul would have been well aware of this because it was the norm of Roman Antiquity. The point Mr. Vines is getting at is that contextualization is important. Take for example how many Church today take Paul's writings on Female Ministry leadership, A good bit of Christians say that Paul was writing based on a culture where women did not take the leadership role and was not writing based on the decree from his "maker". The same applies to homosexuality and to authoritative texts in scripture.

Mr. Vines give scripture as his evidence. His evidence is written in (1 Corinthians 7:7-9, Matthew 19:11). There is context and as I have shown with Paul it is very important to understand. Remember it is the context that we use when answering objections based on the apparent Immoral God of the OT. So Mr. Vince is not begging the question.

Okay so as I have argued before abomination can be applied to a broad range of things that Christians don't consider sinful just read Deuteronomy 14 so abomination does not necessarily work anymore as the term had more to do with what was foreign to Israel than what was moral. Also just because Genesis call the angels "men" does not mean that Mr. Vines' strange flesh argument is invalid but if anything further confirmed. Further speaking Jude does not specifically define the sexual immorality and perversion and so here you are begging the question.

As I have argued the OT law was temporary and was fulfilled by Christ effectively abolishing it. Also, Vines argued that there is no reason to accept homosexual prohibitions when you don't accept other prohibitions because you realize they applied to cultural law and not the moral law such as the planting of crops and the mixing of fabrics regulations. The old law is dead. Combined with the arguments concerning Paul you still fail to show me where Mr. Vines is wrong.

When addressing Paul one must understand Context which I talked about before so now you are just going in circles repeating the same arguments despite my refutations. You are using a lot of words to say very little.

Okay, So I will concede here that the argument that term homosexual didn't exist until 1892 isn't really a strong argument in of itself here is what Vines is saying. Paul used the terms he did in the context of a condemnation of same-sex exploitative relationships what I say is that Paul has no authority to decide who will enter the Kingdom as nothing suggest that God was telling him who will enter and so Paul is basically begging the question.

I assume what Vines is saying here is that the basis for Marriage is relationship backed up by his celibacy argument as well as context and marriage is not necessarily sexual, Procreative, Heterosexual, Vines does not say that marriage isn't Monogamous, Non-incestuous and symbolic of the gospel and the fact that you bring this up shows me that you misrepresent his argument. We have arguments and evidence that stand up under scrutiny and thus we shall adopt them. The fact you suggest otherwise is also a begging of the question fallacy.

Finally. On humans are relational beings this is backed up by the celibacy argument which says that unless God has decreed that we be so then relationship are to be had and one is at odds with scripture to deny marriage relationships to homosexuals.

In conclusion. The arguments have been given and in response, I have seen misrepresentations, Lack of contextualization, Circulatory arguments and logical fallacies. May my opponent try again.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
I would like to know why jrardin12 forfeited this debate.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
picklerickfaggotboi

You need to debunk the arguments, Not just these ones but others before I agree with you.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Yea totally agree with picklerickfaggotboi
Posted by picklerickfaggotboi 3 years ago
picklerickfaggotboi
a lot of people are only LGBT for attention in my opinion, However some people are born LGBT due to sin, If sin never entered the world LGBT people would not exist but when it did it made people think differently.
Posted by picklerickfaggotboi 3 years ago
picklerickfaggotboi
I agree with con
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Grascutter

Are you asking for empirical evidence?
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Grascutter

The formed vessel declares to the man forming and shaping the clay -- prove that you exist! HaHaHa now that's truly good humor.
Posted by Grascutter 3 years ago
Grascutter
No I wouldn't like to debate! , I would just like to see the proof of the existence of a god of any kind! .
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Grascutter

Would you like to debate the arguments for and against the existence of God? We'll start with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The formed vessel declares to the man forming and shaping the clay -- prove that you exist! HaHaHa now that's truly good humor.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.