The Instigator
backwardseden
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
qp
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

jesus never stated one single, not one word about being gay nor transgender.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,262 times Debate No: 112995
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Con

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.
qp

Pro

First of all, Christians should and do not hate homosexuals. Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as our ourselves (Matt. 19:19, 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Rom. 13:9, Gal. 5:14, James 2:8). All of the textual evidence you have provided is from the Old Testament. We were no longer obligated to follow those laws when Jesus came to Earth. "Many tax collectors and sinners... sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, 'How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?'. When Jesus heard it, He said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance'" (New King James Version, Mark 2:15-17). The New Testament also tells us be like Christ, which means we should help those who are sinning get on the right path with God. As for the topic of homosexuality, Paul states in his letter to Timothy that "We... know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, ...for the sexually immoral, [and] for those practicing homosexuality" (New International Version, 1 Timothy 1:9-10). You said "that's... what [C]hristianity and [G]od is", "[G]od is based on hate as [H]e hates children". He most certainly does not hate people, nor does He hate children, as he says "unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven" (New King James Version, Matt. 18:3). We must repent of our sins to become blameless and innocent like children are to enter His kingdom. John 3:16 states "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (New King James Version). God does not hate people, He loves us so much that He sent His Son to be crucified so that we could be saved, which includes homosexuals. We do not deserve His grace; we are all sinners. Despite this, He sent Jesus out of His immense love for us.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Con

"First of all, Christians should and do not hate homosexuals." Well then you completely disobey your god and you do not believe in him. Its as simple as moms honey baked garlic onion beer belly deodorant apple pie. Leviticus 20:13 KJV "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Or a better translation is, and the word "homosexual" was not inserted into YOUR fricken hateful evil bible until 1946, NLT ""If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
"They are guilty of a capital offense."? Wow. So raping a 6 year old girl has a much lesser value than homosexuality in the christian holy book? Yep as god truly hates children. Oh and oh yeah, they also didn"t use the term "homosexuality".until 1946.
"Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as our ourselves" And who makes those commandments? Its not god that"s for sure. And jesus being a false prophet, those messages are torn to shreds considering the absolute fact that your jesus orders you to hate your families and give up all of your possessions which is the sign of only someone who is completely insane. Now watch this lovely video"
http://www.youtube.com... - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?
And here"s those lovely verses to 100% back it up. So do you REALLY believe in this jesus when you knowingly shouldn"t?

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 19:21 "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."
"All of the textual evidence you have provided is from the Old Testament. We were no longer obligated to follow those laws when Jesus came to Earth." So then that means that you do not believe in the god of the OT, creation, the great flood in which never happened, the ark which never would have floated, Noah, exodus, moses, the 10 commandments, the parting of the red sea, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 10 plagues etc etc etc so according to you you do not believe in the god in the OT and the god of the NT are completely different, so you completely toss the OT for everything is states and stands fo and that"s according to you. Oh and who is this "we" Um no, its "you" There"s no "we" because you do not have any idea as to what brainwashed ideals you actually believe in.

Oh and oh yeah you are stupid enough and pathetic enough to actually believe i sin, when it is a super massive hypocritical contradiction in your bible and thus it cannot possibly exist.
Matt Dillahunty "What is sin and why should I care about it? (That"s a very good question. I don"t give a damn about sin. And that"s because I am not stupid enough nor ignorant enough to believe in a selfish self centered god so I have to look over my should every second of every day and worry about something that is completely meaningless such as sin) I understand why I should live an ethical life and treating people in certain ways, we have secular foundations for moral systems. But sin from the christian perspective is a crime against god or god"s nature itself - right? If god makes the rules and you violate it, that"s a sin. Well what if god makes a rule that you should kill your child, does that make it good? Caller " Yeah that"s where I do things that are not aligned in what the bible says." Matt "Yeah. But are they good things? Do you have good reasons to have that the things you are doing are not immoral? Like do you have an example? Like don"t confess to a crime or anything. For example the bible is opposed to homosexuality. Do you think there"s something immoral about those who are homosexuals?" Caller "Uh there"s none that I can think of." Matt "Yeah me neither. And so if the bible"s opposed to it add the bible is the word of god, and the Koran is opposed to it as well and the Koran is supposed to be the word of god as well, and there are two holy books and let them argue over who god is and what god thinks and until they can come up with a sound secular justification for homosexuality being immoral then I don"t need to pay their views any money because its just an opinion at that point."

Sin is hypocritical and contradictory in your bible. Thus sin does not exist.
Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

1 Timothy 1:9-10). Says NOTHING about homosexuality. And even if it did, Timothy does not have any powers to overturn god"s laws, and neither did jesus, a true fake and fraudulent prophet.

Matt. 18:3). "We must repent of our sins to become blameless and innocent like children are to enter His kingdom." Why would you want to with the above verses? To give up your family and ALL of your possessions? There"s no way in hell, a really stupid scare tactic invention of your newly proposed god that you invented out of desperation because you are extremely lonely and severely lack self esteem and probably have 0 genuine friends or loved ones and wow does it show as so so so many here on denbate.org do, that you should ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY when absolutely 0% of nothing is proved. You are so amazingly gullible to fall for any of it and you are far too good for this crap. Now I"m NOT IN ANY WAY telling you what to do, just think, reason, rationalize, use common sense and use logic because there"s certainly none involved with god, your religion and your bible.
"John 3:16 states "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"" Now how utterly stupid is that?THINK ABOUT IT. THINK THINK THINK THINK. And DECENT god would NOT create ONLY ONE savior. He"d create hundreds, thousands or millions all speaking his word. And what did this savior accomplish in which there"s no proof of him ever existing in the first place. Your god created this thing to suffer on the cross. What does suffering teach anybody, especially to children such as you, and you are a child, except that its not good. What can anyone possibly learn from suffering? Even worse is this jesus character is the most fought after figure in the history of the human race. Even worse is your christ is the beginning of suffering. Buddhism is the end of suffering. BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE.

Oh absolutely god hates people. But then again, you haven"t read your bible AT ALL. You are a true first grader at this.
"He loves us so much that He sent His Son to be crucified so that we could be saved, which includes homosexuals." Oh no it most certainly does not. You find me anywhere in YOUR bible where it states something to the effect of "I the lord thy god grants jesus to change my laws rules and regulations as to what he sees fit." Duee to the fact that your jesus broke god"s laws without his permission such as working on the sabbath in which requires the death penalty, and your jesus got away with it he"s not the messiah you seek but false and completely worthless.

And don"t EVER say "us" K you punk kid a$$ because when you say that, you declare war on me with your petty s--t of a religion where you god is 100% pure evil and hate and is the lowest of low and hates children.
qp

Pro

God does not command us to hate homosexuals, as I proved to you in my previous response. You quoted Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (King James Version). Leviticus is part of the Old Testament, meaning we are not required to follow its laws. Galatians 3:23-25 states, "But before faith came", referring to Jesus, "we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (New American Standard Version). Ephesians 2:14-15 states, "For He himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace" (New American Standard Version). Both of these verses prove that through Christ we no longer have to follow the law of the Old Testament.

You are correct in the fact that "homosexuals" was not put into the Bible till later. The word used in the original Greek version of the Bible is "arsenokoitais", meaning, "sodomites". Sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. It was changed later due to understandability reasons. So, both the original Greek and modern New American Standard versions mean the same thing.

Both raping a six-year-old girl and homosexuality are both sins, and whoever commits either should repent for forgiveness.

Jesus was not a false prophet: He was the Son of God. Mark 9:7 states, "Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, 'This is My beloved Son, listen to Him!'" (New American Standard Version). If Jesus was a false prophet, then how did He heal the sick, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the mute, and feed more than four thousand people with scraps on two different occasions (Mark 2:31-34, 8:22-25, 2:3-12, 7:32-35, 6:39-44, 8:6-9, New American Standard Version)?

The video which you linked in your response stated that all Christians disobey Jesus because they are commanded to love their enemies yet they kill them in war, sell all of their belongings, abandon and hate their families, remove body parts when they sin, and to drink poison. Christians can kill their enemies without breaking Jesus' commandment. Romans 13:1-4 states, "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities... [I]f you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil" (New American Standard Version). Peter states in 1 Peter 2:13-15, "Submit yourselves for the Lord"s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men" (New American Standard Version). Both of these verses show that we are to restrict evil with force if necessary. Matthew 19:21 states, "Jesus said to him, 'If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me'" (New American Standard Version). The video states that this is a commandment to all Christians, however, it is actually directed toward the rich man, because his wealth was more important to him than God. Luke 18:22-23 states, "...He said to him, 'One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.' But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich" (New American Standard Version). Matthew 18:8 states, "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire" (New American Standard Version). The person narrating the video took this verse too literally. We are not to remove our limbs if we sin. Take the rich ruler from previously for example, his vast amount of money and wealth caused him to sin by putting money before God. That is why Jesus told him to sell all of his belongings: it was the source of his sin. Matthew 6:19-21 states, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (New American Standard Version). The narrator of the video misunderstood this verse's meaning. It means that you should focus on your Christian lifestyle, rather than devoting your time to tangible objects on this Earth. This does not mean that you cannot have money and things, but that your focus should be on getting to heaven, because "...what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" (Matt. 16:26, New American Standard Version). The next point in the video is that we should hate and abandon our families; this is not true. He provides the verse, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26, New American Standard Version). Not only did Jesus not mean that the target audience should hate their families, but He was speaking to his disciples, not Christians as a whole, as stated in the previous verse, "Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them [Jesus' apostles]" (Luke 14:25). He did not want His apostles to hate their families; He wanted their devotion for Him to be much more than for their families. Hate as used in these instances means to love less. An example of hate being used in the same way previously in the Bible can be found in Genesis 29:31, "When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren" (English Standard Version). We know that Jacob did not hate Leah; he loved Rachel more. The final point made in the video was that Christians are commanded to drink deadly poison; this is also incorrect. He uses the following verse: "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover" (Mark 16:17-18, New American Standard Version). Once again, the narrator has taken verses out of context. A previous verse states, "And He said to them [Jesus' apostles], 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation'" (Mark 16:15, New American Standard Version). Jesus was referring to his disciples, not to anyone "...who has believed and has been baptized" (Mark 16:16, New American Standard Version). Not only this, but Jesus does not command the apostles to drink of deadly poison either, rather that "if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them" (Mark 16:18, New American Standard Version). They are not told to drink poison, they are told that deadly poison will not harm them. You used Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 12:51-53, and Matthew 19:28-29 to try to prove that Christians are commanded to abandon their families. This is not true; we are to love Him and be devoted to Him more than we are to our families, for if our families tell us that our faith is wrong, we must remain with Christ rather than fall for the love of our brothers and sisters. Jesus tells the apostles that they will be persecuted and that they must be more devoted to Him than their parents or they will fail. In Matthew 19:28-29, anyone who gives up family or wealth, meaning that they stay with Christ rather than fall to sin because of their loved ones, in order to follow Jesus will be rewarded, because giving up those things is hard.

There is no God of the Old Testament, or God of the New, there is one God of the Bible and I do believe the events described in the Old Testament transpired. I am not simply ignoring the Old Testament; in fact, I have read a lot of it. The laws described in the Old Testament no longer apply to us.

You said, "I understand why I should live an ethical life and treating people in certain ways". What ethics do you live by? What "certain ways" do you treat people? All you have proven to me is that you will insult and bash anyone to does not believe in what you say to be fact.

You also said "Well what if [G]od makes a rule that you should kill your child, does that make it good?". No, of course not. That is exactly why He has not commanded us to do so. He has already given us all the laws and teachings we need: the Bible.

In 1 John 3:9, it is not that Christians cannot sin, but that they do not practice sin. They do not live a sinful life, meaning they do not deliberately and remorselessly commit sin.

Timothy was not the one who wrote the letter; it was Paul. Nor did Paul change God's law. In fact, he was told by Christ to preach the word in Acts 9.

You asked why God didn't create multiple saviors. Simple: Jesus was all that was needed; He lived a perfect life and was the perfect sacrifice. He died for us, providing forgiveness of sin to everyone who believes and repents.

Jesus didn't violate the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day where you are not to work for yourself; not for others or to do good. Jesus said, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?" (Matt. 12:11, New American Standard Version).
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Con

Since you believe in nothing in regards to the OT, watch this... http://www.youtube.com... - Atheist Debates: But that's the Old Testament!
Oh ab-so-lu-te-ly "God commands us to hate homosexuals" You proved absolutely nothing in your previous response because you are a truly brainwashed idiot who understands nothing about is bible, god, jesus and religion. So according to YOU since you do not believe in the OT, you do not believe in creation, the great flood (in which never happened btw), Noah, the ark in which could have never floated, exodus, moses, the 10 commandments, the parting of the red sea, the 10 plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah etc etc etc. You also do not believe in the god of the OT. So the god of the OT is not the same as the god of the NT and that"s according to you.

Galatians 3:23-25 states, "But before faith came", referring to Jesus, "we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (New American Standard Version). Ephesians 2:14-15 states, "For He himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace" (New American Standard Version). Both of these verses prove that through Christ we no longer have to follow the law of the Old Testament. So that"s exactly what I said. As proved above. Oh but wait gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, who approved that so-called "law"? And what "law"? Describe what law is it that you are even referring to? Sorry, it wasn"t your jesus"s superior, namely god. You are a complete idiot and a moron. There"s nowhere in the bible where YOUR god states something to the effect of "I the lord thy god grants you jesus, to change my laws, rules, and regulations, so that you may do whatever you want with them. AND I give you the strength to perform miracles that are above any mortal." The fact of the matter is, is that there"s NOTHING like that exists in YOUR bible. But in truth I hope you fine it because then you would singlehandedly prove ALL jews from around the world AND muslims from around the world to be both incorrect who worship the same exact god you total fricken idiot who truly known 0% nothing about his bible, god, religion and christ. So indeed, the laws, rules and regulations from the OT are still in effect. And its just too bad that your teeny bopper brain doesn"t like it.

Oh and oh yeah YOUR jesus is once again proven to be a false messiah because he broke many of god"s laws including working on the sabbath"
Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." That's pretty clear. And YOUR jesus IS NOT GOD and had no permission whatsoever to overturn this law as he word on the sabbath and thus should---have---been---put---to---death.. Thus jesus WAS NOT THE MESSIAH. PE-RI-OD.
* Numbers 15: 32-36 "32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
* John 7:23 "If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?" Well well well well what a super massive hypocritical contradiction to the above verses Numbers Numbers 15: 32-36 imagine that! Wow. Yet another super massive hypocritical contradiction out of a good at least 1,000 or so of its inconsistencies in your bible making the damn thing truly unreadable.
* John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Making himself equal with god? Who in the f--k did this jesus character think he was AND especially without permission from god?
* John 9: 14-16 "14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them." jesus was NOT EXEMPT from working on the sabbath according to anyone and especially god in which there's nothing that said he was. jesus cannot sudden;y say I'm here POOF I'm going to change god's PERFECT laws. Sorry.
* Mark 3: 1-6 "And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him."Wowzers a withered hand is really taking care of the suffering - right? Here's a nice little video for your teeny tiny little brain.
http://www.youtube.com... - Why christianity is unreasonable
* Matthew 12: 1-2 " At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." So the disciples should have been executed as well.
* Luke 13:14 "And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day." Well that's pretty clear.
"You are correct in the fact that "homosexuals" was not put into the Bible till later." OK well then according to you then that means that ANYBODY through the ages has taken potshots at your bible through the thousands of years that it has been on display and thus obviously and rather blatantly you have no idea as how to interpret your bible because of this. And it also proves that your god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

*Both raping a six-year-old girl and homosexuality are both sins, and whoever commits either should repent for forgiveness." Oh I get it, so if you as a christian were to see a gay person kissing another man and then see someone raping a 6 year old child, you'd call the police on the gay couple. Good job in proving just how badly we need christians in this country because it is only christians that opposes being gay at such high levels here on this soil. However, thankfully christianity is fading and failing fast and rightly so. Don't you christians have better things to do with your time like helping others like the 6 year olds being raped? Isn"t that what YOUR religion is supposed to teach you? But then again it doesn"t teach you that at all now does it? It in fact it teaches you to hate. That"s because god is based entirely on hate which is so ridiculously easy to prove as god hates children. The hate has gotta stop people. christians need to become responsible and own up to their stupid mind numbing that don"t--make--any--sense--stances. christianity has lost 5.1% of its following since 2007 and atheism has doubled. 5.1% is a huge number. Rightly. Justly.

Since you are truly a racist bigoted vile pig, who cannot possibly read his bible for what it is, this debate is now over.
qp

Pro

You are wrong in the sense that I do not believe in anything in regards to the Old Testament. As I have mentioned multiple times, the events described in the Old Testament did transpire. The law of the Old Testament is what we are no longer bound by. The flood and Noah's ark are not part of the law, I'm not sure how you mixed those up. One is a historic event, and the other refers to rules that God's chosen people had to follow. They are two different things. I also do not have the time to watch 40 minutes of debating, so if there is information in either of those videos that you want me to know, you will have to put it in your next response. You are still insistent that God wants us to hate homosexuals, yet who have failed to provide a single verse in the Bible that says so.

You asked "who approved that so-called 'law'? And what 'law'?". I was referring to the abolishment of the old law through Jesus. You then stated "your [J]esus' superior, namely [G]od". Jesus is God; the Godhead is made up of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, which is called the trinity [23]. Jesus doesn't need permission to do anything, because He is God [3-11, 13-18, 21-23]. John 10:30 states "I and the Father are one" [9]. 2 Peter 1:1 states "by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ". Hebrews 1:2 states "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world". You claim that Jesus is not God but provide no hard evidence to back that up.

You then say that Jesus is "a false messiah because he broke many of [G]od's laws including working on the [S]abbath", and that He should have been put to death. This is incorrect. If Jesus did violate the Sabbath, then He sinned. This is false because we know that He lived a perfect, sinless life [12, 19-20]. 1 Peter 2:21-22 states "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth" [20]. There are multiple accounts of Jesus being accused of breaking the Sabbath, so I will go through all of them. Luke 6:1-2 states "Now it happened that He was passing through some [grain fields] on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. But some of the Pharisees said, 'Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?'". First of all, Jesus did not pick any of the grain. Second, in Luke 6:5 Jesus states "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Jesus can do anything He pleases regarding the Sabbath. It was not unlawful for the priests to work for the Lord in the temple. Matthew 12:5 states "'Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?'". The priests were excused because they were working in God's temple. Jesus says in the next verse "'But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here'". His disciples were excused because they were there with Jesus, who is much more important than the temple.

"On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him. But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, 'Get up and come forward!' And he got up and came forward. And Jesus said to them, 'I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?' After looking around at them all, He said to him, 'Stretch out your hand!' And he did so; and his hand was restored". Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. Not only this, but he was not committing a selfish act; he healed a man's hand. Doing good on the Sabbath was not unlawful, only things done for yourself. Take the man who was picking up sticks for example: he was doing his personal chores on the day that God commanded them to rest as He did so on the seventh day of creation. The Sabbath was meant as a blessing, not a curse to capture those who do good.

Luke 13:10-17 states "And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, He called her over and said to her, 'Woman, you are freed from your sickness.' And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made erect again and began glorifying God. But the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the crowd in response, 'There are six days in which work should be done; so come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day.' But the Lord answered him and said, 'You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him? And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?' As He said this, all His opponents were being humiliated; and the entire crowd was rejoicing over all the glorious things being done by Him".

Luke 14:1-6 states "And Jesus answered and spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?' But they kept silent. And He took hold of him and healed him, and sent him away. And He said to them, 'Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?' And they could make no reply to this". The other story(ies) is like this as well.

You said "OK well then according to you then that means that ANYBODY through the ages has taken potshots at your [B]ible through the thousands of years that it has been on display and thus obviously and rather blatantly you have no idea as how to interpret your [B]ible because of this. And it also proves that your [G]od would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible". Please elaborate on what you mean by people taking "potshots" at the Bible. You say that the Bible has been on display, as if it is some sort of painting in an art museum. The Bible is read and studied by so many people; how would they not know how to interpret it? The original Hebrew and Greek writings have different translations, like any language being converted into another. You then say that text is the worst form of communication. What other form of communication do you think should have been used? I see no downsides to text as a form of communication.

You then said "Oh I get it, so if you as a [C]hristian were to see a gay person kissing another man and then see someone raping a 6 year old child, you'd call the police on the gay couple". What in the world are you talking about? Homosexuality is not a crime, why would I call the police?

Next, you said "Don't you [C]hristians have better things to do with your time like helping others like the 6 year olds being raped?". Do you think I should purchase a gun and go scour the streets searching for rapists?

You said, "That's because [G]od is based entirely on hate which is so ridiculously easy to prove as [G]od hates children". You also said that I could not prove Jesus' permission to change the law because I could not find a verse that stated "I the [L]ord [T]hy [G]od grants [Y]ou [J]esus, to change [M]y laws, rules, and regulations, so that [Y]ou may do whatever [Y]ou want with them". Then let me ask you this: if it is "so ridiculously easy to prove", then give me a verse from the Bible that says "something to the effect of", "You cannot be My follower till you have hated all children".

You said "The hate has gotta stop people". I agree: I have treated you with respect, while you have said that I am "stupid", "pathetic", a "punk kid a$$", a "brainwashed idiot", a " moron", and a "racist bigoted vile pig". If anyone needs to stop hating, it is you. Where have I stated anything about one race being superior to another, or anything about races at all?
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Con

"You are wrong in the sense that I do not believe in anything in regards to the Old Testament." Oh no, I am absolutely 100% correct in stating that because you as a supposed christian, in which there is no such a thing (you did not even pay any attention to the video posted, naturally because you are a true coward and no offense, but I"m really getting sick and tired of maggots like you that totally avoid any evidence when it is directly posted to them, so you, let"s do the reverse and since I do not believe in your god, I should have the right, playing by his rules in reverse have every right to murder you.
"As I have mentioned multiple times, the events described in the Old Testament did transpire." Oh really? According to what *yawn boring boredom which bores a boring bore" imbecile you? "The law of the Old Testament is what we are no longer bound by." There---for---the---last---time---is---no---law. You just cannot pick and choose what YOU and ONLY YOU want to nitpick at and pick the good stuff and hug and cuddle with it and chuck the bad stuff out and take a giant leak on it. Also what you are stating is that your god changed in a major way. Because he was a hard a$$ in the OT and murdered people for no reason, hated children of all things and murdered them for no reason, wanted to execute those that broke the sabbath, those that did not believe in him, those that cursed at their parents (in which carried over to YOUR NT so don"t talk to me about YOUR law you miserable oafing cow), those that blasphemed, those that committed adultery etc etc etc. This god of YOURS also committed horrific genocides for 0 reasons, hates women, murdered innocent pregnant women which is abortions in which you so-called christians are so against which is a super massive hypocritical contradiction so YOU go against YOUR god, loves raped women etc etc etc, This god suddenly changed from being evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, all in which he freely admitted to having, he suddenly changed into this super cool dude white rabbit and not having them anymore in the NT? Hmmm Yeah. Right.
"The flood and Noah's ark are not part of the law, I'm not sure how you mixed those up." WHAT LAW??? See you cannot present one god damned f--king thing and I"m really getting sick of it. Oh and oh yeah, one historic event that NEVER occurred. This thus proves that YOUR god flat out lied, and that YOUR bible is filled with lies. "and the other refers to rules that God's chosen people had to follow." And since they were so ridiculous and truly impossible to follow, nobody did, BUT, those laws are still intact because nobody changed them AND nobody had the power to change them, AND god gave nobody the power to change them.
"I also do not have the time to watch 40 minutes of debating, " Oh but you do have the time to compose 40 minutes worth of hogwash for something in which you clearly know nothing about. So what do you do instead is you flat out invent excuses, without taking a look at any true evidence whatsoever. And don"t hand me this bile crap that you don"t have 40 minutes when the first and only video posted in RD2 is only 6 and " minutes proving that in no possible way are you a christian whatsoever. Invent better excuses please.
Then you continue because you don't know any better in which is really infuriating "You asked "who approved that so-called 'law'? And what 'law'?". I was referring to the abolishment of the old law through Jesus. Well jesus, =in not being god, did not have the right, nor the power to do as such.
There's no such a thing as the "trinity". Period.
"which is called the trinity [23]." 23 what? Jesus doesn't need permission to do anything, because He is God " Oh how wrong you are. But then again, you cannot even read YOUR BIBLE.
John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." It does no good to claim that "Let us" is the magisterial "we." Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve
Now here's a few verses from YOUR bible CLEARLY showing that YOUR jesus, in which you have 0% proof of even existing, just like YOUR god, was NOT god, but the SON of god, thus making them TWO separate entities in which YOU cannot argue with.
* 1 Corinthians 15:28 "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
* Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
* Mark 1:11 "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
* John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
* 1 John 4:10 "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
* John 14:13 "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
* Mark 5:7 "And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not."
* Luke 8:28 "When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not."
* Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
* 2 Peter 1:17 " For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

"John 10:30 states "I and the Father are one"" So? Who is this conceited little brat who---self---appointed---HIMSELF---to---this---position? I mean if he did it, then there's no reason why you can't do it. And the same is true for the rest of the world.

2 Peter 1:1 states "by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ"." Well by golly gosh darned gee whiz, god did not in any way state that now did he? Um nope. So why did you mention it?

Hebrews 1:2 "2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" AND WHO STATED THIS? IT'S not GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 peter 2: 21-22 is a complete joke. Um no. There is no such a thing as anyone or anything SUFFERING for me. That's totally ridiculous. AND even worse is this god of yours, in which you cannot even prove even exists, creating one single idiot to supposedly suffer for all of man. AND your religion teaches the beginning of suffering. Buddhism teaches the end of suffering. Oh gee, I just cannot imagine which I or any sane person would choose. Not only that what are children expected to learn of someone's suffering and or their suffering except for NOTHING you total dolt? And you REALLY think that a supreme deity couldn't have thought of a better way for a so-called salvation in which also, naturally cannot be proved? YOU are totally ridiculous for yourself to try to sell that crap to me or anyone who happens to be intelligent and educated into believably. "We" are nowhere near as tragically gullible as you that would fall for ---anything--- that is put in front of their face. If I was to show up at your doorstep tomorrow and were to tell you that I was your jesus, pass all of your questions, and I know I would with ease, because you are so ridiculously blind AND whole wheat gullible beyond belief AND you also go into global thermal meltdown denial,, AND I were to order you that you MUST get rid of all of your possessions and dump your family why by gum, you'd do it it a heartbeat to the closest slaughterhouse because those were my prerogatives from 2,000 years ago, which is in your bible, and then naturally I'd order you to follow me, and the only question I'd have for you is why you haven't done those things already because they are things I've already ordered you to do in your bible, so why haven't you done them yet?

"If Jesus did violate the Sabbath, then He sinned." There is no "if". HE DID. Wow. you cannot even read.
"This is false because we know that He lived a perfect, sinless life" Who is this "we" Um no, its YOU. Only YOU.

Idiot. Luke 6:10 "And looking roundabout upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Your jesus worked on the sabbath.
Second, in Luke 6:5 Jesus states "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Jesus can do anything He pleases regarding the Sabbath." WRONG! YOUR god DID NOT AUTHORIZE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM for your jesus to break hs laws. And as proved above, YOUR god AND jesus ARE two separate entities.
The jews ARE correct, YOU are incorrect. What you are saying is that the ENTIRE OT is wrong RIGHT THERE and that the entire jewish religion is false and that ONLY you is correct. YOUR jesus CANNOT go around and break one of the most divine commandments of all time. Moses certainly couldn't, and jesus WAS NOT GIVEN AUTHORIZATION!!!. Oh I get it also, so you really expect me or anybody who knows one goddamned f--king thing about god that since this jesus character is going to work on the sabbath, that this god is now going to break his commandment and NOT rest on the seventh day and actually work on it? ARE YOU F---KING SERIOUS?

I"m not even going to pay attention to anymore of your stupid idiotic flatly invented excuses.

Lastly here's a video to prove you wrong as usual. Yep, its got the the sabbath in it.
http://www.youtube.com... - top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive
qp

Pro

Verse references can be found at the bottom of this reply

You said, "...I should have the right, playing by [H]is [God's] rules in reverse have every right to murder you." No you do not: we are not bound by the Old Testament Law. Even if we were, it would be a rightly deserved punishment (assuming I violated the Law), not murder. Those who broke the Law knew the repercussions of doing so; "Their bloodguiltiness [was] upon them" [1].

You said, "There---for---the---last---time---is---no---law." You also said, "...[T]hose laws are still intact..." How can laws be intact if they don't even exist? This is one of many contradictions in your response; it is somewhat hard to know what you actually believe.

You then said, " You... cannot pick and choose what [you]... want... and chuck the bad stuff out." I have not chosen certain laws to follow and certain ones to ignore based on what I think; we are told what laws to follow in the New Testament.

Next, you said that God "murdered people for no reason" and "hated children." God did not murder anyone for no reason, rather, He commanded that those who broke His Law be killed as punishment. The laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect as I have stated numerous times. "...[W]e have been released from the Law, having died to that which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter" [2]. "...Christ is the end of the law" [3]. "...He... who... broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments..." [4]. "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete" [5]. These pieces of scripture prove that the Old Law is no longer in effect.

You said, "[O]ne historic event [the Flood] that [never] occurred. This... proves that... [G]od... lied, and that [the] [B]ible is filled with lies." The Flood's occurrence can and has been proven, but I will not be going into that as that is not the focus of this debate. God has not lied, and you haven't provided any scriptural evidence that says otherwise.

You then made a remark about my refusal to watch the 40 minutes of debate videos you linked me to. It is not that I am afraid to look at evidence that contradicts the truth, but I simply do not have the time to watch them, as I am a student who has schoolwork and chores.

Next, you said that I "...flat out invent excuses." I have provided evidence to back up all of my claims. You are the one who lacks substantial proof.

You said, "...[G]od gave nobody the power to change them [His laws]." This is untrue: "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgement to the Son" [6]. Jesus is God so He can do as He wishes, but this verse is even clearer, directly stating the authority God gave to Jesus. You also said, "Well [J]esus, ...not being [G]od..." Jesus is God. "His [Jesus] name will be called... Mighty God, Eternal Father, [and] Prince of Peace" [7]. "...'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things...'," and "[a]ll things came into being through Him [Jesus]..." [8, 9]. "'...He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him'" [10]. These verses are clear that Jesus is God.

You, or at first I thought, said "It does no good to claim that 'Let us' is the magisterial 'we.' Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve." After further examination I concluded that you had copied and pasted those sentences verbatim from factory.over-blog.com/article-2465573.html; you should give credit to the author when using their work, and cite it so people know where you got your information. As I stated in my previous response, God the Father; Jesus, God the Son; and the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead, also known as the Trinity. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" [11]. "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity [Trinity] lives in bodily form" [12]. If 'Son of God' does not mean that Jesus is God, then does 'Son of Man' mean that Jesus is also not a human? Obviously not; "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He... was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" [13]. How could Jesus "...[make] Himself equal with God" by calling Himself God's Son? This is because being 'the Son of God' and 'God' mean different things [14].

You then claim that Christianity "teaches the beginning of suffering." This is incorrect. Jesus suffered, taking our place, so that we could be saved. Christianity teaches that Jesus suffered for us. It does not teach people that they must suffer in order to be forgiven of sins.

You then state that if you were to "...show up at [my] doorstep tomorrow and were to tell [me] that [you were my] [J]esus," I'd be forced to do everything you say. I would not believe you, because I know that when Jesus comes, "...the sun [will become] black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon [will become] like blood; and the stars of the sky [will fall] to the earth... The sky [will] split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island [will be] moved out of their places" (more information about Jesus' coming can be found in Revelation) [15].

You are still insistent that Jesus sinned by breaking the Sabbath. "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" [16]. This proves on top of my previous evidence that we are no longer required to follow the Sabbath.

You said, "The [J]ews [are] correct...," but you stated previously that there is no evidence of God's existence. How can you say that the Jew's beliefs of God are correct if you don't even believe He exists?

Finally, you said, "I'm not even going to pay attention to anymore of your stupid... invented excuses." You said this because you did not want to acknowledge my correctness on your rude behavior. I said that "[y]ou said 'The hate has gotta stop people'. I agree: I have treated you with respect, while you have said that I am 'stupid', 'pathetic', a 'punk kid a$$', a 'brainwashed idiot', a 'moron', and a 'racist bigoted vile pig'. If anyone needs to stop hating, it is you." You refused to respond to your poor etiquette and continued to insult me.

The video stated that the laws regarding the Sabbath are still in effect; it stated, "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever" [17]. The speaker misinterpreted the verse to mean, "God's laws stand forever." This is incorrect; it means that His promises will be unchanging, not His law. He also used the verse, "The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" [18]. The speaker misinterpreted this verse to mean that God's law is perfect, meaning it does not need to be changed. This is also incorrect. It means that God's doctrine is perfect, in that it converts the soul (the whole verse must be taken into account). By previously proving that we are not bound by the laws of the Old Testament, the other points he made in the video are nullified, as they pertain to the Old Testament.

Note: All scripture quoted from the Bible is from the New American Standard Version

References:
[1] Leviticus 20:13
[2] Romans 7:6
[3] Romans 10:4
[4] Ephesians 2:14, 15
[5] Hebrews 8:13
[6] John 5:22
[7] Isaiah 9:6
[8] Isaiah 44:24
[9] John 1:3
[10] John 5:23
[11] 2 Corinthians 13:14
[12] Colossians 2:9
[13] John 5:18
[14] https://carm.org...
[15] Revelation 6:12-14
[16] Colossians 2:16, 17
[17] Isaiah 40:8
[18] Psalm 19:7
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: passwordstipulationssuck// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: conduct goes to pro because con committed many ad hominem attacks against pro. spelling and grammar goes to pro because of many run-on sentences and comma splicing. arguments goes to pro because in the hatred clash, pro comes out on top. Largely because of the fallacious attacks made by con. ad hominem, appeal to authority.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter must provide at least one specific example of personal attacks levied by one side in this debate. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. While errors may be sufficient reason to award this point, they must reach the threshold of substantially increasing the difficulty involved in understanding one side"s arguments. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Generalizing about the outcomes of specific arguments and the types of arguments presented is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Klove 3 years ago
Klove
So In all of what I said I side with qp.
Posted by Klove 3 years ago
Klove
Man Backswardsen makes me laugh, to be honest. Not in a rude way. He's just wrong on everything, he fights with people to MAKE or force himself right. Listen, Jesus was NOT gay, nor does he tell us to hate gays, transgender, etc. God says in the bible, "Love your enemies." God tells us to love our neighbor, love our enemies, but not in the way you guys think. It's not in a, wow I love this person, it's a way of family love. The way you love your family, is how you should love the people against you, the people with you, the people who are blinded and lost.
Posted by qp 3 years ago
qp
Here are the resources for round 3: https://www.writeurl.com...
Posted by kwagga_la 3 years ago
kwagga_la
@bucky Hi my old friend, it's been awhile. The subject of homosexuality can be judged by comparing it to what is natural regardless of whether you believe in God or not. Comparing it with nature you can make some specific deductions so then what's the big deal with what Jesus did or did not say about it? Anyway, I watched a debate Matt vs. Sye where the opening statement from Sye included video clips of Matt contradicting himself on various occasions about what he actually believe. In the rebuttal Matt just contradicted himself some more claiming he could know something. I suggest you watch it since you like to quote from Matt a lot. I do not necessarily agree with everything his opponent said but the video clips was quite good and exposed Matt as someone who claims whatever in a moment to try and win the argument although it may contradict claims he made previously. Let me leave you with a quote from eBay: I know this is not what you wanted to hear, but was it helpful?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@kwagga_la - I've learned not to pay any attention to a single word you have to say because you, like so may here on debate.or has no genuine friends or loved ones which is a HUGE red flag, as you have to invent excuses and or flat out lie to gain acceptance in which NOBODY of merit will agree with you. Yeah I read what you said, but its completely worthless and has 0% to do with the debate. Now you go back and you read RD1 into which was the opening of this debate you total 100% fricken moron tried, but did not succeed like always, like the typical christian, in which there really is no such a thing as being a christian not only because you cannot follow your christ's orders to abandon your families in which you probably did, and give up all of your possessions in which in no possible way did you and follow him in which in no possible way did you, which only shows your christ's complete and absolute insanity, and yet you cannot even prove your christ has ever existed. AND as the typical christian, you tried, but are a complete failure in life, but that's not my problem, that's yours, so you have to cling onto this nothing of terrorism of hate and evil with a superior ego complex which is what your god in which you cannot prove exists as well, bible and jesus are all about and nothing else, you try to deflect the subject matter because you cannot attack it directly because to have the the attention span of a single celled orgasm, sorry, organism, and no evidence to counter what truly matters because you have no truth whatsoever to back you up because faith is not truth. "Faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence." Matt Dillahunty and he's right. Yeah the typical christian has no evidence. Were you ever potty trained with a choo choo and all that smoke as a youngun?
Posted by kwagga_la 3 years ago
kwagga_la
Perhaps someone can refute the following two statements:

1. If everyone were to become homosexual then humankind will become extinct, therefore homosexuality is against nature and the survival of the species. It does not matter whether you believe in God or evolution. It is clear that a homosexual lifestyle will lead to the extinction of races and therefore destructive
rather than positive in all respects.

2. Lesbians are usually the ones who fight for the adoption of children or the use of donors to have children. If they really were born lesbian and a product of genetics and therefore attracted to a partner who cannot satisfy their needs then why do they still have the need to have a child to begin with? It is clear therefore that a homosexual lifestyle is not natural.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
You do realize you've made yourself Con to "Jesus never said...", so you disagree with the notion.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
I think Jesus was gay, after all he hung out with 12 apostles, all men, Peter Luke, Paul, etc etc, I wonder which one was his lover.

Also Jesus had no kids, never married and in those days people had children in their teens and Jesus was 40 and still not married.

Jesus was definitely gay!!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Josekadams - Yeah christians just cannot handle their sniveling little rodent yeast infection standing back on the issues that his god put forth. And the thing is nobody can prove either exists.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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