The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tanner_1230
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender.

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...
tanner_1230
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 825 times Debate No: 112993
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Rules: Give the "why" christians should hate gays/ homosexuals. In order for you to accept this debate, you MUST be a christian and follow the bible implicitly.

(Pro) christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender. Since that is all for the (Pro) side, I will be taking the (Con) side. Yet strangely christians and only christians like packs of wolves and the whooping cough are against being gay/ transgender. And they also have the $$$$$ to back them. Otherwise being gay/ transgender here in this country would fizzle like a used hamburger of pure blackened ash and those who are gay/ transgender would be able to live their lives as they see fit and in peace. And the other thing is, is there's no reason "why" christians hate gays/ transgenders in their greasy hate filled bible"s or in person other than it is what it is. Yeah. Talk about being totally 100% immoral and fickle. But then again, that's exactly what christianity and god is as god is based on hate as he hates children. Ah yes, being gay is an outlet for christians to either hate, or learn to hate and they love it in return, just as their god wants.

Another rule: dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
tanner_1230

Con

I gladly accept this challenge. Before I put forth my formal argument about Jesus Christ's stance on the homosexuality and transgender issue both my opponent and I must agree on a few things.

1) I expect to be treated with respect. I understand if there is fault in my logic I need to be called to my error, but I will not stand around and be personality insulted. If you do, I will take it as a forfeit of the debate. I am fine being criticized, but there is a distinction between criticism and blatantly attacking me.

2) Let's assume that the Gospels along with the New Testament were a valid accounting of Jesus' life and ministry. We cannot get very far on what we think Jesus' position is on these issues if we do not know what he said.

3) Finally, let us not forget that you hold the majority of the burden of proof on this issue since you raised the debate and are on the pro side of this debate. I will however for the interest of the viewers be commenting about Jesus' and the scripture's position on these two issues, however this does not negate your job of proving the position above.

In return for these three conditions I will have an honest open debate about this very interesting topic. My opening argument will be in round 2. I thank you for your time and hope for a pleasant debate.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Well duh you play by my rules. I do not play by yours. Got it? My rules are quite simple enough and I posted them at the top of the page. And I will say this as it goes for all of my debates, no exceptions, none" IF your show intelligence, with an education, and present valid evidence then I most certainly will treat you with dignity, integrity and respect (which has happened ever so rarely here on debate.org. But when you make up stuff from the top of your head and thus invent excuses and or flat out lie in an attempt to prop yourself as being Hi Ho Sliver riding on his manure spread filled with his christ crispiy snack crackwhores and cheesewhiz fillings in a meager attempt to cover for his tracks because he doesn"t know what he is squawking about, and yet he pretends he does especially on the subject that he claims he has knowledge upon but really doesn"t, then it is my right to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize you. This is something that is taught in college. And if you do it to your teachers = instant F. If you do it to your friends and loved ones = no friends and loved ones because they will not deal with your yammering B.S. So why on earth should I? I also truly hate it when others simply cannot READ which happens more often, especially christians as a whole as compared to atheists BY FAR and its not even close as its well known that those who claim themselves to be christians, they do not read their bibles, whereas atheists do. Now if you don"t like it, leave. I---don"t---care. I"m NOT here to please you. And I most certainly DID NOT ask you to accept my debate now did I? That"s a very BIG nope. So its up to you. So an education, intelligence, bring in some VALID evidence (not some crap made up from your head that nobody will ---ever--- believe in which nearly 100% of christians are famous for), READ what is put forth to you, because I am ---very--- well educated on this subject.

And then you blow it completely"
"Let's assume that the Gospels along with the New Testament were a valid accounting of Jesus' life and ministry. We cannot get very far on what we think Jesus' position is on these issues if we do not know what he said." Well first, um no, its an impossibility of the NT of the gospels being true because those who hung around with jesus could not read nor write. So everything was stated from memory as to what jesus said in the bible and memory is ---always--- no exceptions, none, suspect to not only failure but is always, no exceptions, none, unreliable. And even better, well actually worse, is when characters and what they say, their quotes in other words, they have been changed over the course of the generations and the passing of time. And its truly ridiculous that YOUR god (in which you cannot even prove exists, the same is true with christ) that somebody, anybody actually would have enough nerve and gall to change what they say. That"s one of the main reason(s) and there are so many, why YOUR god would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.
Also who is this "we" um no its you. Only you. Don"t include me with your arguments that don"t do very well among those that know better.

It even gets worse. And that"s because you are not a true christian. In fact nobody who has an intelligence is. Do you follow YOUR jesus when he barks off his completely insane and inept verses of getting rid of your families and possessions? Why "oh no jesus would never say that". Um yeah right. It is so clear that you have not read your bible at all.
Have fun watching this video and read these verses below also proving your jesus to be quite insane as you would never abandon your family unless severely abused, nor would you ever give up ALL of your possessions, Yeah jesus a true superior ego complex just like his father god in which the bible is entirely about, you cannot even prove either of them exists.
http://www.youtube.com... - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?
Great family values statements "abandon your families, give away all your possessions, follow me:
* Matthew 10: 35-37 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
* Luke 12 51-53 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
* Matthew 19: 28-29 "28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Luke 14:33 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
* Luke 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.""
* Matthew 19: 28-29 "(repeating) 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
* Matthew 19:21 "21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
* Matthew 13: 22 "22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."

So do you REALLY think that YOU can find ANYWHERE in YOUR bible, that YOUR jesus stated ANYTHING at all about being gay nor transgender? Please do try harder. A lot harder. That BOP is on YOU.

"Finally, let us not forget that you hold the majority of the burden of proof on this issue since you raised the debate and are on the pro side of this debate." That was a miss-steak if you would have bothered to LEARN HOW TO READ. Wow. Why is it that christians as a whole cannot READ as well as comprehend? Do you know what "READING" is? You know. Words. Sentences. I also gave you super simple particular RULES for your ignorant cabbage batbrain to follow. And YOU DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD BE INSULTED? Oh you 100% DESERVE TO BE INSULTED, CHEAPENED, DISBARRED, DISHONORED, DISCOMMUNICATED from your tribe etc etc etc. Now if you wish to continue with this debate, then you go back and you read EXACTLY what RD1 stated. And then burp up the word "duh". Sheesh.
tanner_1230

Con

Now let me begin my argument. This is going to be a little tricky to determine what Jesus believed since as my opponent said "those who hung around with Jesus could not read nor write." So to satisfy my opponent I will speak only in terms of the book of Matthew (the tax collector who would have had to be able to read and write) and the Pauline letters. Also to satisfy my opponent I will not be using Paul's letters as direct evidence, instead there purpose will be in closing off things that could have been misleading about the message of Jesus. Also since they both were Rabbis it may be important to examine the general thought process of the times. One more thing on the continuity of the scriptures before beginning my formal debate. To clear up the confusion about the process of translating the bible, I would like to remind you and the readers that the bible is always translated from the earliest manuscripts of the historical documents. This may not be satisfying to not have the original documents, but the time gap for these documents make sense for a historical time line to get the documents to a longer lasting paper. Secondly, there are multiple manuscripts through various different locations and this has allowed us to deduce what alteration had been added to the text (parts of John 8 are an example of this) with this in mind let us jump into the words of Jesus.

Like any document the verses in the Bible are best read in the context of the book/chapter. However to save time I will be using a few verses to prove my point. Please feel free to go back and read the passages in their entirety. If you need an online version I advice blueletterbible.com they offer multiple translations and a side by side comparison of the original Greek/Hebrew.

The first verse I would like to examine is a verse from a chapter my opponent already cited. Matthew 19 : 4- 6 says:

"Haven't you read" he replied " that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate"

Now let's analyze this passage, and it will tell us a lot about Jesus' view point. First the context for this passage is the discussion of divorce. It's more clear in the earlier part of the passage, but you can tell for sure by the last verse on the union of the flesh. Secondly Jesus believes in the gender system. He doesn't talk about preference but simply says male and female. This is the ideal that Jesus' just assumes simply because it's the known view of the scriptures. Jesus does not say a whole lot about homosexuality or being transgender mainly because it was not really a problem for the Jewish community. Everyone knew what the law required at the time.

The next verse to be analyzed is Matthew 15:18-20. It reads:

"But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts - murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

The thought of this passage is simple it's not what we intake that actually degrades our souls but how we act accordingly. Included in that list is sexual immorality, which homosexuality falls under.

Now this is the baseline of my argument. Jesus spoke about homosexuality and the distinction of the two genders. Which takes down both the clause of this argument about Jesus speaking on homosexuality and transgender people. I would also like to highlight the fact that just because we deem these things immoral does not mean that we should not treat homosexuals and transgender people with love and respect. We may not agree with their life choices, however that does not mean we get to ridicule the non-Christians for this. Simply because everyone is a sinner. The role of the Christian to the sinner is a message of warning. We may love you, but our God is angry. Thus the message of the Gospel comes in and completes the Christian message. There is no justification of hating a Christian of hating a gay or transgender. That's a straw man fallacy on my opponent and a breaking of the second greatest commandment (Love your neighbor as yourself).

Now before I close this round I need my opponent to answer some technical questions. (You can message me the answers if that's convenient) In the first round you said you would be taking the con side, however you took the pro side of the argument. Some clarification would be helpful. I will be replying to your argument in full in my rebuttal next round. Good luck and have fun.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Yadda yadda yadda about the apostles writing the bible when you have 0 proof of jesus even existing.
http://www.youtube.com... - jesus wasn"t jesus (Aron Ra)
http://www.youtube.com... - The True Core of the jesus Myth (Christopher Hitchens)
http://www.youtube.com... - Did jesus Exist?
http://www.youtube.com... - Why christianity is Unreasonable (Richard Carrier)
http://www.youtube.com... - Biggest Lie - The fourth gospel ("The first striking revision in the 4th gospel is that the ministry of jesus has ballooned out from from one year to three. The writers not only make a reference not only from one but to three distinct passover festivals. Now was this just a tradition that some early christians held to a three year ministry and others to a one year ministry? Can anyone honestly maintain that whole dialogues could be remembered word for word for many decades and yet believers have no common agreement whether these words were said during one year or during three years?") Um duh. Do you REALLY THINK jesus existed?
http://www.youtube.com... - The Gospel According to Carrier (Richard Carrier states jesus may have possibly existed, but scrap all the mythology)
http://www.youtube.com... - Proving the Historicity of Jesus? Tracie and David
http://www.youtube.com... - What did jesus do for you?

And here"s some proof as to who wrote the gospels"
http://www.youtube.com... - Who wrote the gospels?
http://www.youtube.com... - Stephanie Thompson vs Matt Dillahunty, or how not to debate an Atheist! (this is hilarious as Stephanie is remarkably ignorant and stupid beyond belief skip to the 6:00 mark)

"I will speak only in terms of the book of Matthew" Well that right there is a grave fallacy. Prove that what you are reading/ interpreting is correct, NOTHING is established in scripture. That"s because the christian god, if remotely intelligent in which he is clearly not, would never use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody can get it wrong as there"s been 0 updates in at least 2,000 years. There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead langanguages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trance it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly.

http://www.youtube.com... - Christians don't understand the character of God
"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty

http://www.youtube.com... -The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty

"If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We"d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor." Christopher Hitchens

"with this in mind let us jump into the words of Jesus." And those were which have strangely changed and been updated with each translation and language barrier so you truly as a reader has no idea as to what jesus said even if you could possibly prove in any way by a miracle click and a snap of your fingers that he ever existed. Wow. Yep that"s an invented excuse if there ever was one. And there"s no consensus between the 30,000 or so variations of christianity to make matters all the worse for you and your tribe.

"Like any document the verses in the Bible are best read in the context of the book/chapter." Yes I 100% agree with you. And that is why, speaking in general only, that atheists know the bible better than christians do. Google it.

Um no, you know what I use is a TON of websites. I"m not glued to just one to get my asphyxiation to be glued to the doormat.

Well that"s news to me that I cited Matthew 19 : 4- 6.
"Now let's analyze this passage, and it will tell us a lot about Jesus' view point." Really? According to what? You? How would you know? What grade of fake plastic dog vomit odiferious odere" le classe muy muy grande" did you pass to come up with that one. I mean you may think it all you want. But there"s 0% of an explanation from your jesus anywhere in your bible about jesus"s "viewpoint". Strike 1 for inventing a flat out excuse in a true meager attempt to save your sorry you know where areas to burn from a fiery fling of arrogance and stupidity. If you give me 2 more of them, this debate will be over instantly. DO NOT GUESS. KNOW what you are talking about, present ACTUAL evidence or don"t present it at all.

The next verse to be analyzed is Matthew 15:18-20. It reads:

"But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts - murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

See? That"s not what it reads. In fact not even close.
KJV "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Now figure out the BIG difference. Someone CHANGED what your christ said along the way. Either from the KJV version to whatever version your barfed upped, or from the version you barfed upped to the KJV. Who in their right minds would change what jesus aqnd or god would say? And to constantly update what these characters, and or any character would say = how does ANYONE know what they said? = not a chance in this universe. Which is yet another reason why YOUR god in which you cannot even prove exists would NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

"The thought of this passage is simple it's not what we..." Whoa there kiddo who is this "we"? Um no its you, only you and you missed half the planet, women are not mentioned in these verses at all now are they? Nope. So naturally they are exempt from these verses - right?. continuing "intake that actually degrades our souls but how we act accordingly. Included in that list is sexual immorality, which homosexuality falls under." and your jesus never stated it. So POOF bang, it doesn"t count. You can"t go off interpreting on---your---own.

"Now this is the baseline of my argument. Jesus spoke about homosexuality and the distinction of the two genders." Ab-so-lu-te-ly. Not. god did. Not jesus. Picture this, you back in that time and you were to hear those verses, would YOU thus believe that those who were gay would be included within those verses? If so then you would be the bigger idiot than the frog marching his dildo across the pond. And to make matters worse, there"s no "why". It is what it is. Just because YOU think its immoral, and because jesus barks in his whiny ringtones, I"d be willing to bet that if jesus were to tell you to become a Nazi, you would most certainly do it because like here, he gave you his "word" and nothing else as your inferno of gullibility sets in.

I"m out of space.
tanner_1230

Con

Goodness gracious you are not short winded. I won't analyze the individual videos; I apologize to my opponent but I don't have 2 and a half hours to watch them all and have the time to break down there components and give a satisfying reply. I will however reply to the majority of the arguments my opponent brought up in this debate in my rebuttal.

First off... "flat out lie in an attempt to prop yourself as being Hi Ho Sliver riding on his manure spread filled with his christ crispiy snack crackwhores and cheesewhiz fillings in a meager attempt to cover" this may be the best phrase I've ever read on this website.

Now let's discuss your two main points in the second round of the debate.
1.) The first argument, which has the greater validity of the two, is on the reliability of the Scriptures
2.) The second argument is on the fact that no Christian follows Jesus truly.

Now for the sake of argument let us assume that you are correct in the second point, that no Christian really follows Jesus. What does that say about what Jesus' thoughts on homosexual and transgender people? It says absolutely nothing, it is simply an ad hominem on the Christian community.

To back up to my opponent's first point let us discuss the reliability of the scriptures. Note that the majority of historians all agree on four things regarding the life of Jesus.

1) Jesus died on a cross and was buried
2) Jesus's tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body.
3) Jesus's disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead.
4) Jesus's disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations.

Now I will not go extremely far into the historical argument for the Christian faith, however I would like the reader to note that in nearly all of these points that no one doubts Jesus' existence. Now I once again will discuss the nature of biblical translation. The current translation is translated from the earliest manuscripts which are tested against each other for historical accuracy. If it is not satisfying that there is no originals you are being completely ridiculous. If you began using that standard of logic for every historical document, we would have to throw away a majority of our history books. The gospels are one of the most historically best cited documents of the ancient world. I would need some very strong evidence to dissuade me of that fact.

Now I will respond to the claims of my opponent made in the third round that did not fall into an ad hominem fallacy.
On the verses Matthew 19:4-6 nothing is wrong with my interpretation of the verses, and my opponent failed to offer a fair alternative so that point stands.

Now for a point of clarity on the verses in Matthew 15. The word used in the KJV is fornications and the word in the NIV (which I was using at the time) was sexual immorality. The sin of fornication is that which is sex outside of the biblical definition of marriage (strictly between a man and a woman). The meaning does change slightly when the word is pluralized from the Greek from porneu!3; to porneia (fornication to fornications). The second is a noun and involves a broader application of sexual immorality to include things such as incest, homosexuality, and premarital sex. Thus even though my opponent may want to throw the interpreters under the bus the two words mean practically the same thing.

Another note about his attack on my interpretation of the Bible was that Jesus did not explicitly state things and thus my interpretation is inherently wrong or only applies to the interpreter. This statement is a distraction from my argument and does not help his case. Had he said, no Jesus said in another preaching x, y, and z so clearly he couldn't mean that or gave a better interpretation in the context of the situation I would be willing to accept such argument. Instead he simplified the preaching of Jesus to something he wants spelled out simple.

Now the majority of my argument still stands strong. My opponent has failed to put up a valid argument, and in its stead a slur of insults directed at the Christian. To my opponent I beg for a stronger response that does not rely on ad hominems. I await your reply and am excited to respond.

Side Note: Still need some clarity on the discrepancy mentioned in round 2. Thanks a lot!
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Goonies gracious hellfire my pants are on fire because of genital problems with He-Man and and She-Ra showing me the way to a goose liver showdown with tinfoil brain dead love songs played again and again on death metal radio stations. Absolutely not am I short winded because indeed I DO KNOW WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT and can prove it, whereas you guess at best. And wow have you utterly shown you shown this with a stamp on the forehead saying "duh I"m here" on your forehead of the apocalypse. See, I provide evidence. And what does the typical claims to be a christian do? That typical claims to be a christian runs from it. Naturally. That"s because dare the christian god ---ever--- be proven wrong especially with a slap to the face with that evidence proving this god to be wrong? Of course not.

Now let's discuss your two main points in the second round of the debate.
1.) The first argument, which has the greater validity of the two, is on the reliability of the Scriptures = in which there is none. 0%. That was proven in RD3 with 2 videos and backup from the videos and what they said as well as common sense, reasoning, thinking, rationalizing, logical inspiration as to why god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible unless this unproven god is a full blown moron, but we already knew that.
2.) The second argument is on the fact that no Christian follows Jesus truly. Which is true. You don"t. And naturally you completely avoided the ONE video in RD2 which 100% proves this.

"What does that say about what Jesus' thoughts on homosexual and transgender people? It says absolutely nothing," yes that"s absolutely 100% true because 1. You don"t know what jesus was thinking, not ever. And you cannot take any guesswork at it no matter how hard you try. 2. And jesus said nothing about gays transgenders in the first place. Sure you can guess that he did. Sorry, that"s not good enough. And you cannot twist his words to suit YOU no matter how hard you try and or wish for this or that to happen. That"s how wars get started WITH EASE. Your christ sneezerag is the most fought after figure in the history of the human race and yet no one can even prove his existence. Here"s something to think about in which I just vidied this mornin"...
"You"ve got 3 religions of peace all worshiping the same god of love and forgiveness, and yet they"ve been at war, continuously, ever since their inceptions." Aron Ra Its true and its pathetic.

"To back up to my opponent's first point let us discuss the reliability of the scriptures." Let"s stop right there for a few dewdrops, because there is no reliability. None. Its an impossibility. Here"s a few tee hee"s out of thousands from a book that"s supposed to be perfect"
MT 27:37 The inscription on the cross read: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."
MK 15:26 "The King of the Jews."
LK 23:38 "This is the King of the Jews."
JN 19:19 "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
The contradiction
MT 27:46 Jesus asks God, the Father, why he has been forsaken.
MT 27:46 " And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

"Note that the majority of historians all agree on four things regarding the life of Jesus." And who would these so-called "historians" be? Oh I get it, more like "creationists" you mean, ah yes. And ALL creationists are deviled egg companions to be smothered in burnt hamburger ash of their own toot toot tootering bile that they make for their own brewing coffee naps as they are all worthless. Why oh why do you ask? That"s because they cannot stand behind their product, namely their god, AT ALL. Not ever. They will NEVER put their god on trial again. They are not that stupid. They 100% know that they will lose every single time because they know that all they have to go on is faith based oriented. And faith is not evidence of any kind and would be tossed immediately. And since they cannot stand behind their product, how can ANYTHING they say be accepted as truth? Is a huge problem that no creationist can overcome.
"1) Jesus died on a cross and was buried" Wow and yet your bible can"t even agree on something in regarding this" here you go"
MK 16:1-2 The women came to the tomb to anoint the body.
JN 19:39-40 The body had already been anointed and wrapped in linen cloth.

MK 16:5, LK 24:3 The women actually entered the tomb.
JN 20:1-2, 11 They did not.
"
2) Jesus's tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body. Really? According to what? Oh Oh yeah WOMEN. In which case YOUR bible completely disrespects. And even then the stories change.
MT 28:1 The first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two). MK 16:1 Both of the above plus Salome (three).
LK 23:55 - 24:1, 24:10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (at least five).
JN 20:1 Mary Magdalene only (one).

MT 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived.
MK 16:2 It was after sunrise.
LK 24:1 It was at early dawn.
JN 20:1 It was still dark.

MT 28:1-2 The stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later.
MK 16:4, LK 24:2, JN 20:1 The stone had already been rolled (or taken) away.

MT 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).
MK 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.
LK 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
JN 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.

MT 28:8 The visitors ran to tell the disciples.
MK 16:8 They said nothing to anyone.
LK 24:9 They told the eleven and all the rest.
JN 20:10-11 The disciples returned home. Mary remained outside, weeping.

3) Jesus's disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead. Well that"s silly. How can this be true if they didn"t even know what a resurrection was? Oh I get it, since they didn"t know, they invented the excuse. And its kinda not true anyway because of how sporadic and displaced your bible is and really can"t get its story right"
MT 28:8-9 Jesus' first Resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb.
LK 24:13-15 It was in the vicinity of Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem).
JN 20:13-14 It was right at the tomb.

MT 28:9 On his first appearance to them, Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and the other Mary hold him by his feet.
JN 20:17 On his first appearance to Mary, Jesus forbids her to touch him since he has not yet ascended to the Father.
JN 20:27 A week later, although he has not yet ascended to the Father, Jesus tells Thomas to touch him.
MT 28:7-10, MT 28:16 Although some doubted, the initial reaction of those that heard the story was one of belief since they followed the revealed instructions.

MK 16:11, LK 24:11 The initial reaction was one of disbelief. All doubted.
MT 28:1-18 The order of Resurrection appearances was: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, then the eleven.
MK 16:9-14 It was Mary Magdalene, then two others, then the eleven.
LK 24:15-36 It was two, then Simon (Peter?), then the eleven.
JN 20:14 - 21:1 It was Mary Magdalene, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven disciples again.
1CO 15:5-8 It was Cephas (Peter?), then the "twelve" (which twelve, Judas was dead?), then 500+ brethren (although AC 1:15 says there were only about 120), then James, then all the Apostles, then Paul.
MK 16:14-19 The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.

LK 24:50-51 It took place outdoors, after supper, at Bethany (near Jerusalem).
AC 1:9-12 It took place outdoors, after 40+ days, at Mt. Olivet.
MT 28:16-20 No mention is made of an ascension, but if it took place at all, it must have been from a mountain in Galilee since MT ends there.)

4) Jesus's disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations. Transformed into what? Barbie dolls who eat spin-itch? You are so gullible.

Oh please, there are billions that doubt jesus"s existence. As the vidies in RD3 prove. And probably a good third of the world has not even heard of this unknown jesus. The people"s the Brazilian rainforest, the aborigines, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. In other words don"t make things up as you go in order to gain attention for your sorry reareth endeth which at this point only expels granny farts in comparison.

"The current translation"" What current translation would that be that differs greatly from each other? "is translated from the earliest manuscripts which are tested against each other for historical accuracy." Oh absolutely they are not as they take great liberties whenever they feel like transporting different wording from a thesaurus to trump up a yodeling grunge country opera meaning with no original to race back to anything so 0% of the population knows if they are interpreting correctly. AND since this is true YOUR god if reasonably intelligent WOULD NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible as mentioned in serious depth in RD3 in which you didn"t even pay attention to the quotes from those who 100% know a lot better than you as well as the vidies which also know a lot better than you and I"m not going to get into it with you again because you are flat out ignorant and wrong on this subject.

"If it is not satisfying that there is no originals you are being completely ridiculous." No you are being completely ridiculous. How do you know you are reading ANY correct text without a source to trace it back to anything in existence? That"s just like saying The Big Blue Book 3,000 years down the road, in not having an original to be able to trace it back and missing "See Spot Run" would be an acceptable interpretation. The bible is NOT evidence.

I'm out of space. Sheesh.
tanner_1230

Con

My opponent's argument is frustrating for a few reasons:

Firstly the citation of the videos as a source of proof is completely unacceptable on this website. It is one thing to cite a website or article for data to build your argument but to claim that they prove the points you are trying to make is beyond ridiculous. It would be like me citing Jay Warner Wallace's book "Cold Case Christianity" and saying that therefore scripture is reliable and Christianity is true. The book does indeed walk through the historical discussion of Jesus, but it would be unfair for me to do that because it is my job to convince my reader not an outside source.

Secondly he ignores my points that his second argument (mentioned in the third round) is unhelpful to him in this debate. He also tries to say the reason why my points are not valid about Jesus is that it is written on paper? This argument is absurd.

Now even though my opponent claims that the tiny differences (which he really is just nitpicking here) are a terrible thing for the reliability of scripture I would beg to differ. In fact some of the slightly off stories are a good sign that these men are telling the truth. Which at first glance seems paradoxical, why would inconsistencies lead to claiming that the document is true? Example: The book of Mark has a bias towards the apostle Peter. If you read the book of Mark carefully, you will notice that Mark never puts Peter in a negative light, and always shows off his positive sides compared to the other gospels. This is fascinating because Mark was a disciple of Peter, so of course he would not like to put his teacher in a negative light. This seems odd for someone who is trying to hide up a lie. The best course of action would to stick to one strict story. Especially about the new leader of the Christian church. I have a few more examples (taken from the book mentioned above) however no documentation of historical events will be a hundred percent accurate concerning the events. These are four different gospels written by four different men. However, the similarities between the four different gospels despite their differences gives a coherent message on the life and work of Jesus' ministry.

Now to defend my four points. Firstly, I mean all historians: Atheist, agnostic, and theists alike. They all mostly agree on these points. Now I will defend each one.
1) Stop being ridiculous. I meant the rite of burial not actually being buried in the ground compared to a cave.
2) No I mean according to the ancient Jewish writers outside of the Christian faith. They believed that the apostle stole it (even though that was later disproved as well). But they never claimed that Jesus' body still rested in the tomb, otherwise they would have dug it up and displayed it to the public.
3/4) Continuing on my last point the Apostles were extremely disorganized at the time of Jesus' death. No one properly examining the facts could say they were smart enough and strong enough to pull off the stealing the body of Christ under the Roman guard nevertheless. Peter was denying Jesus and the other apostles had gone into hiding, except John. Now with them gathered together they claimed to see the resurrected as written down in the account called the Gospels. Afterwards they went on to create the Christian Church, and the rest, they say, is history.
These are the facts if you doubt them I need specifics and a historian/historical documentation to backup your claim, not youtube videos.

My opponents attack on translations is silly. The phrase "The man walked down a path" and "He strolled up the avenue" are used with completely different combination of words however mean virtually the same exact thing. It may be true that some things get lost into translation sometimes, but the clear overarching meaning of these two sentences are the same. It is ridiculous to think that a man who says the first phrase and then the second phrase about the same event is lying to you.

Next the demand for original manuscripts does not prove anything. If this was the case we would have to throw out all the work of Homer, Plato, Socrates and many others. It's like saying just because we don't have the original copy of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone we cannot prove that the books we have are an accurate description of JK Rowling's original story.

Finally my opponent has completely derailed this debate into an attacking of the reliability of scripture and an attack on the Christian Church as a whole. This is simply evident of the lack of a proper argument of the phrase written above. He has said nothing on Jesus' thoughts on homosexuality and the transgender issue. And thus is failing his side of the debate.

Also please note I am not trying, at this time, to prove the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Instead I am just trying to prove they are an accurate description of Jesus' life and ministry. Nothing more nothing less. So while your supposed contradictions may be helpful to you to disprove Christianity, they will not help you here. Just because there are small differences that can usually be explained away doesn't mean an entire document is false.
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

Nevermind. I'm not even going to bother reading a single word that you have posted for RD4. There's absolutely no possible way that you could have had enough time to have digested the information that I posted in between rounds to what you have posted to come up with a proper post to circumvent it. PE-RI-OD. Like nearly 100% of those who pretend that they are christians, you most certainly are not one as you have not given up your family nor have you given up ALL of your possessions as your christ orders you to do. Here's you and I cannot pity you for this... absolutely no one can convince you of anything, period, no matter what it is, you MUST be right on everything AND everybody else is WRONG no matter even if you know that you are wrong. Even if someone were to agree with exactly what you were to say to the letter, you would still manage to find fault with that person. That my friend = ego, just like your god, bible and religion as unproved by nobody.
tanner_1230

Con

Before I begin my closing remarks I have a message for my opponent. I expected better from you backwardseden. Regardless of what your opponent says you should always hear someone out. I took over an hour and a half calculating my response and reading yours. I'm sorry if this is not enough time for your standards however I do not have infinite time on my hands. I simply saw your reply was posted (6 minutes after to be exact) and had some time to spare so I replied immediately. I also am disappointed that you failed to actually discuss the real debate about whether Jesus talked about homosexuality or going transgender. Instead you devolved this into an attack on the validity of scriptures and the Christian believers. I never once brought my personal views into this discussion instead I took the stance of an observer of the gospels as an account of Jesus Christ not as divinely inspired. But in this final round you attack my faith instead of replying about my strong argument on this issues. This conduct is unacceptable for any debater. I would go into depth about why you are wrong about these verses you quote so much, however I believe your own words characterize you the best "absolutely no one can convince you of anything, period, no matter what it is, you MUST be right on everything AND everybody else is WRONG no matter even if you know that you are wrong."

So to the voter I conclude this debate with this. My opponent fails to refute or give a more valid interpretation of the verses that show how Jesus said words "about being gay and transgender". His arguments proved nothing except for a little skepticism in scripture hermeneutics, which I disproved in the third and fourth sections. I believe I have produced the better argument and ask the voter to choose Con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cole.bonds 3 years ago
cole.bonds
@backwardseden, you are probably the worst debater I've ever seen. Congratulations on this loss and the other 39 debates you have lost.
Posted by tanner_1230 3 years ago
tanner_1230
Goodness gracious, in one paragraph you crucify me for having some language in my text for a degree of uncertainty (which I wrote to not sound conceited) and then in the last paragraph you attack me for thinking I'm always right. I just can't win with you. I was going to offer to watch your videos after my finals for college were finished in exchange for you watching mine, but I guess you're done with me so I believe it's fruitless.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
When you say "I am pretty sure' that means you don't know. It means like nearly 100% of all christians you are guessing.
Two more things, there's no such thing as the trinity, get it out of your mind. http://www.debate.org...
And pay attention to NOT ONLY YOUR FRICKEN BIBLE which proves you to be wrong, but the videos as well.

And faith may mean "trust", sure, but faith is still NOT EVIDENCE. But there are other definitions for faith as well such as 2. belief that is not based on proof: in which your yep oh so true of your religion. And you don't think that your apostles were even the slightest bit skeptical? Sheesh. How naive are you?

This will be the absolute last communication with you. I cannot spend my time with someone who is so convinced that he is right and cannot possibly pay any attention to anyone else but himself for answers, which means he does not have any friends or loved ones in which is a HUGE red flag, and as stated, if someone were to agree with EXACTLY what you were to state, you would still manage to find fault with that person.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Tell you what, until you watch the videos presented unto you, you are a worthless drab. Bye.
Posted by tanner_1230 3 years ago
tanner_1230
@backwardseden You do know that the verse "Why hath thou forsaketh me?" is a quotation of David in Psalm 22:1. Also I am pretty sure the church cleared up the issues with God and Christ being one in essence and two in person with the doctrine of the Trinity [1]. Another thing (I just saw your second response) faith is somewhat of a loaded term these days. The original sentiment of the Greek word pistis (faith) closer resembles our word for trust. Trust can be based on evidence and it can be based on foolishness. Even if you look at the English word faithful this makes sense. We say someone is faithful not because they are full of unfounded belief but instead someone we are fully willing to trust. The Christian God does require faith, yes, but that faith can be supported by evidence and truth.

1. https://www.ligonier.org...?
This is the Ligonier Ministry explaining the doctrine of the trinity by walking through the early church
history and the early church councils. This properly explains how what you quoted is not an
inherent contradiction.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
You cannot be confident in faith because you cannot prove faith. A yes good ole faith, in which is not evidence, just like the bible...
"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence?" Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence." Matt Dillahunty

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." Richard Dawkins

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins

So you have debunked yourself by idiotically mentioning "faith".
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@NerdiestNerder - You cannot possibly be THAT stupid or ignorant. And as usual the typical christian invent excuses and or flat out lies to keep his cherry picking hen pecking orgyrama lovesicicle in the below the belt area in an attempt to gain nothing from 0% of nothing since it is proved to get something from nothing. My conduct is just fine when someone shows no intelligence has has to make up excuses and or flat out lie for something in which they clearly know nothing about and yet they pretend that they do. And because they don't they have to invent trash especially when they state that this is a subject that they claim to having a knowledge upon. This is taught in college. And if they do it to their teachers = instant F. If they do it to their friends and loved ones = no friends and loved ones. And so so so many here on debate.org have no genuine friends or loved ones. What do I mean by genuine? Thjose that will go way way way wayyyyyyyyyyy out of their way to help them out in time of dire need and NEVER ask them a single question. Its a HUGE red flag and its so easy to spot. And I'm not going to deal with it. And besides my insults ARE original, funny, and only when you act REALLY stupid and unintelligent do I nail your scrotum soda pops to the barf bags flop flop fuzz fuzz.
"This actually furthers the Christian argument, because if they were exactly the same," Well then this jesus character would have stated "Why hast thou forsaken me" See, and you wonder why you shouldn't be insuilted. And IF you were to have actually read your fricken bible, in which case you clearly haven't, then you would realize that according to it, christ and god ARE NOT one and the same. AND christ was a false prophet at any rate. "to make it more believable"? None of it is to be believed because nobody has ever been able to prove god or for that matter that christ has even ever lived.
Posted by NerdiestNerder 3 years ago
NerdiestNerder
""To back up to my opponent's first point let us discuss the reliability of the scriptures." Let"s stop right there for a few dewdrops, because there is no reliability. None. Its an impossibility. Here"s a few tee hee"s out of thousands from a book that"s supposed to be perfect"
MT 27:37 The inscription on the cross read: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."
MK 15:26 "The King of the Jews."
LK 23:38 "This is the King of the Jews."
JN 19:19 "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
The contradiction
MT 27:46 Jesus asks God, the Father, why he has been forsaken.
MT 27:46 " And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?""
This actually furthers the Christian argument, because if they were exactly the same, that means all of them would have come together to make it more believable. But here, they were so confident in their faith, that they didn't even come together. You were stating that no one could they have memorized it all the exact same way? Well, you just debunked yourself!

Also, your conduct is terrible. If i was unbiased to start and didn't care about the facts, I would immediately resent you. You have no respect for the other side and are absolutely hideous to your opponent, who is being extremely respectful. Just because you have power doesn't mean you treat the people under you like crap. You act like a 6-year-old sometimes, for someone who is a self-proclaimed "rational and logical god". Personally, if that is what logical people do nowadays, I'd rather be dumb but ethical.
Posted by tanner_1230 3 years ago
tanner_1230
I said I modified the argument to fit this topic. I did not modify the verses. They are all from widely accepted translations of the Bible. And I did discuss that point about hating gays in the second to last paragraph in the second round.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@tanner_1230 - Yeah you did modify whatever passage to suit your wants needs and desires to your specifications and interpretations only which is why it can't be accepted. And you still haven't mentioned the all the "why" christians should hate gays a clearly as your god does in his multi transcribed bible.
And I'll bet yah anything now that being gay is accepted all over the world except for in a few countries, and no that does not include here, that within 20 years or less, your bible will be changed to accept gays with a few verses because it does suit man's wants needs and desires. Bet yah. Bye. Case closed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
backwardsedentanner_1230Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: As far as conduct goes, I think it's a fairly obvious award to give to Con. Pro was extremely hostile, dismissive and in some cases, even abusive. Con held his own with admirable patience. Pro's spelling and grammar were fairly poor. Run on sentences abound and a disdain for punctuation. Though Con had some errors here and there, for the most part is was decently well written. it's not too common for myself, as a staunch atheist, to see a butchery of the atheist case in the face of Religious "evidence". Con made very logical arguments, most of which were not properly (or even at all!) addressed. I gave a tie on sources because, though Pro provided more of them, it was done incorrectly. one cannot be expected for watch 2 hour opinion pieces. If you wish to make a point, Pro, next time simply cite your EVIDENCE at the bottom which allows your opponent to verify where it came from if he has doubts about it's veracity.

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