CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It is sin for heterosexuals to have sex/ look on a woman lustfully before marriage. After marriage you are free to do so, but for homosexuality it's a sin no mater what.
That is not a reason. You are saying just because, but that is stupid. You are also implying that homosexuals should be allowed to get married so that they can stop sinning
- If you look at porn or anything "blasphemous" you have to cut out your eye (Matthew 5:29)
- ALL atheists will go to hell, no matter how good they are as people (Mark 16:16)
- Women cannot think for themselves (1 Corinthians 7:4)
- Women can't teach (Timothy 2:11)
- Losing virginity before marriage is punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:20), as well as gathering wood on sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36), and "blaspheming the Lord" (Leviticus 24:15)
Yeah... I'm pretty sure I'm gonna take what the bible says with just a hint of salt, thank you...
I'd like to address these verses that you have brought forth. I hope that you may read and understand the true meaning of grace, through the movement of the Holy Spirit by His Word.
1) This verse is not literal. It is a metaphor for standing out of the way of temptation; for sin comes from the heart, one's inner being, which no man can be stripped of by his own volition. Moreover, its about reforming yourself so that you do not sin--pluck out your weaknesses and inclinations to sin. Furthermore, if it is literal, then Hebrews 12:4 takes care of that: "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." This means that this is an extension of God's seriousness towards sin, even though He understands that people will not go to extreme lengths to fight it.
2) No one, but God, is good. It doesn't matter how much one tries to be good, no one will be good, for even our greatest deeds are like dirty rags when examined parallel to God's righteousness. One must be perfectly flawless in order to go to heaven; Christ died so that the one's, whom He has chosen to believe, may be with Him in paradise. Thus, it is by grace the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven comes. This is why we are told that Christians are adopted sons and daughters into the heavenly family, for we do not choose to be with God, He chooses us.
3) 1 Corinthians 7 is about marriage and the pursuit of a holy life. Because the power of sin is great, God tells husbands and wives to give themselves to their spouses so that no temptations may take root within their hearts. This is what this verse is about.
4) If one looks at the rest of the book of 1 Timothy, one will find that it is an "instruction manual" for how to run the church. It gives strict guidelines for who can be named the leaders within the church. This is a common theme throughout the Bible: certain people have been given unique and characteristic spiritual gifts so that we may serve as many as possible, including one another. This is simply an expression of whom God has called to lead the church. Moreover, if one believe in the doctrine of predestination and election, then one believes in God having called certain peoples for certain tasks.
5) Christians are not to follow the civic laws of the Old Testament. Because many Old Testament Scriptures were guides for how a country should be run, then, because we (Christians) do not have a specific landed/geographical nation, we do not follow these laws. These laws are laws like our own contemporary and modern constitutional laws, such as being sentenced to prison for theft. Moreover, the things that you have mentioned are sins; sins deserve punishment; therefore, to have a law for punishing sin is, in fact, a very holy and righteous thing.
The Bible is a wonderful book of love and grace. It is a story of God glory. I hope that you, after having read this response, may become moved by the Spirit and soon follow Christ as a brother and friend. If you have any further questions, then you are welcome to ask.
Well your a non-believer I assume, yes? Did you even read what the verse's mean or look at in context? That's what a lot of people do they attack the Bible and yet not look at the verses in context to what it says.
If you look at porn or anything "blasphemous" you have to cut out your eye (Matthew 5:29)
That verse says that its better if one part of the body is lost then the whole body be tossed into hell. He doesn't literally say to cut your eye out.
ALL atheists will go to hell, no matter how good they are as people (Mark 16:16)
That is correct but if they want to get into heaven then they can by repenting and accepting Jesus into their life and its their choice to believe.
Women cannot think for themselves (1 Corinthians 7:4)
That verse is saying that men have authority over women because its just like Christ is the head of the church. They can still think for themselves but they are the head ruler of the house.
Women can't teach (Timothy 2:11)
The verse you are looking for is actually verse 12. And that's correct because its a man's job to preach.
Losing virginity before marriage is punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:20), as well as gathering wood on sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36), and "blaspheming the Lord" (Leviticus 24:15
Well if you look at that verse that was back and it was wrote for the Jewish people. But Christians don't kill people over those things.
And it also states that having sex before marriage is also a sin, among many other things.
So if no sin is greater then the next "like it says", and if all this crazy talk is true (religious books) then I guess every man women and child will be in hell.
This isn't a buffet, people don't get to pick what is a sin and what isn't, see this is what pisses me off about religious people they love to pick and choose.
If you ever worked on a Sunday or ate pork, shellfish ect.ect.ect. then you are no better then the person you call faggot.
This is why it's all bullshit, I really wish people just saw religion for what it really is, "nothing", nothing at all, just some bullshit, we should be working towards bettering themselves and our earthly community instead of bickering over dumb shit like who likes the same sex.
And it also states that having sex before marriage is also a sin, among many other things.
Yes that is considered a sin.
So if no sin is greater then the next "like it says", and if all this crazy talk is true (religious books) then I guess every man women and child will be in hell.
You have to look at the obvious there only can be 1 correct belief system and if 1 is correct then the rest contradict all other beliefs and the other beliefs are wrong.
This isn't a buffet, people don't get to pick what is a sin and what isn't, see this is what pisses me off about religious people they love to pick and choose
Actually we don't pick and choose. Its all based on what our beliefs say about the certain sins. The Bible makes it clear for Christians.
If you ever worked on a Sunday or ate pork, shellfish ect.ect.ect. then you are no better then the person you call faggot.
The only seafood I eat is salmon and that's about it but I don't eat all of those other seafood like sushi, shellfish, shrimp and others. I don't eat pork on a regular basis because I found out that pigs are just animals that eat garbage and in their immune system they can handle toxins of a snake and the toxins in the garbage and that might be transferred to the food or make people sick.
This is why it's all bullshit, I really wish people just saw religion for what it really is, "nothing", nothing at all, just some bullshit, we should be working towards bettering themselves and our earthly community instead of bickering over dumb shit like who likes the same sex.
I really wish people would actually see what Christianity has done and not just focus on the negative stuff. If people would just give Christianity a chance maybe things would a lot better in this world. Well what Jesus said was true us Christians will be hated because the comment you just were saying about how Christianity is all bullcrap that proves that what Christ said was true about us Christians.
Well I hate to agree to insults, but I can agree to this because based off the definition of bullshit:Stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense. The bible is full of it. I mean nothing sounds more ridiculous to me than condemning a person for wearing polyester.
So you admit that it's a sin? You don't sin that way, but it's a sin nonetheless. If something as simple as wearing polyester is a sin, then how can you take it seriously when it says something as major as a way of life is a sin?
No the Bible is mans interpretation of Gods word God did not write it and can you prove that over the years no alterations have been made and no mistakes when translating from its original language?
The Bible only condemns those who practice homosexuality. Simply having desires for something does not make one sinful; it is only when one actively and strongly meditates upon a sinful act and desires for it to be a reality that it becomes a sin of the heart. Homosexuality is not a sin just as heterosexuality is not a sin: they can both be taken there, should the person's heart become filled with darkness.
Neither are heterosexuals. The only way anyone can have sexual relations is through marriage, which is how God intended it to be, which is good and holy. Moreover, that question is an illogical one, for everything has it's purpose and certain things are not allowed; it raises more questions about allowing immorality than stopping it, for all actions come from desire. For example, if I have the desire to murder, then, according to this logic, I should be allowed to murder, simply under the premise of my inclination to want something. However, you might be tempted to say that it is no way the same as comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality. Well, then one must include pedophilia and bestiality and incest.
Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex, and gain the benefits of marriage. Homosexuals are not, which is quite oppressive, knowing that it isn't their choice.
The only way anyone can have sexual relations is through marriage, which is how God intended it to be, which is good and holy.
So, no finding a mate attractive? No touching or kissing? That is not scientifically how human beings work in the real world.
For example, if I have the desire to murder, then, according to this logic, I should be allowed to murder, simply under the premise of my inclination to want something.
Murder is a far-fetched example of a basic human right to love.
Well, then one must include pedophilia
Sexually undeveloped and immature human beings.
and bestiality
Socially unaware animals.
and incest.
As long as it involves two consenting adults, it shouldn't really be much of an issue. Love is love.
Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex, and gain the benefits of marriage. Homosexuals are not, which is quite oppressive, knowing that it isn't their choice.
Everyone is born into a life of sin and totally deprived of any goodness. To say that simply "because one is born into a life of homosexuality, then one is, therefore, entitled to live how they have been born" is equivalent to saying that simply "because one is born into a life of sin, one is, therefore, entitled to live how they have born." Under that logic, then one can commit murderous deeds because on has been born with the killer gene. Instead, we are to control ourselves and become the opposite of who we have physically born as.
So, no finding a mate attractive? No touching or kissing? That is not scientifically how human beings work in the real world.
I don't understand what you are trying to ask. One can find his or her mate attractive along with being able to touch and kiss him or her.
Murder is a far-fetched example of a basic human right to love.
Love does not require a sexual component to it. Therefore, it is not equivalent. Homosexual relations do not require love.
Sexually undeveloped and immature human beings.
That is a red herring.
Socially unaware animals.
Another red herring.
As long as it involves two consenting adults, it shouldn't really be much of an issue. Love is love.
Yet again, love does not require sexual relations. Love and list are separate.
Under that logic, then one can commit murderous deeds because on has been born with the killer gene. Instead, we are to control ourselves and become the opposite of who we have physically born as.
You have it wrong. The killer gene is just a name for which people act more physically and violently than the rest of the populace. It is much easier to control a violent nature. Homosexuality is different, just like how you cannot simply change the nature of a straight woman/man to like the opposite sex. It is a large characteristic that determines who you are, and it cannot be changed unless you alter your whole biology which is impossible to do, unless accompanied by future technologies.
It's also just the same with people born with retardation- you simply cannot change their nature. Hypocrite.
I don't understand what you are trying to ask. One can find his or her mate attractive along with being able to touch and kiss him or her.
But you denied all sexual relations to exist before marriage.
Love does not require a sexual component to it. Therefore, it is not equivalent. Homosexual relations do not require love.
Do you not think heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in marriage? Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are human; they both share the same 'love'.
That is what I am saying; it should be equal, it should be fair. They are born different without their will, so restricting their rights is unjustifiable.
That is a red herring.
It isn't a red herring; having sexual relations with a child is wrong to have, knowing they are not fully developed human beings to have sex at all.
Another red herring.
Animals are completely
Yet again, love does not require sexual relations. Love and list are separate.
Shouldn't of used the word 'love'.
I meant to say 'love' with the context of what is shared between both heterosexual and homosexual couples; what drives them to get married and start a family. And I would also want you to become aware of the financial benefits occupied with marriage.
You have it wrong. The killer gene is just a name for which people act more physically and violently than the rest of the populace. It is much easier to control a violent nature. Homosexuality is different, just like how you cannot simply change the nature of a straight woman/man to like the opposite sex. It is a large characteristic that determines who you are, and it cannot be changed unless you alter your whole biology which is impossible to do, unless accompanied by future technologies.
No, people are born with the natural inclination to be violent, which is their nature. This is the same thing as homosexual nature, for they are both psychological.
It's also just the same with people born with retardation- you simply cannot change their nature. Hypocrite.
Simply being retarded is not a sin. That is a weak analogy.
But you denied all sexual relations to exist before marriage.
What about it?
Do you not think heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in marriage? Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are human; they both share the same 'love'.
Love does not require sex. Marriage is defined as with a man and a woman; therefore, it homosexuals cannot be married. Moreover, the entirety of homosexuals acts have been condemned and, because God said to be married and sin no longer, then homosexual marriage is contradictory.
That is what I am saying; it should be equal, it should be fair. They are born different without their will, so restricting their rights is unjustifiable.
It is fair. They have the same rights as any other person.
It isn't a red herring; having sexual relations with a child is wrong to have, knowing they are not fully developed human beings to have sex at all.
That doesn't matter. If one is born with a natural inclination to want sexual relations with another person, then under your logic, it should be allowed. You would have to change the argument to say that only reasonable people could be sexually active, which would then raise the question as to who is rational. Moreover, your "retardation" objection earlier is directly countered under your statement here. Furthermore, it would become a type of social darwinism, which is immoral.
Animals are completely
Same argument as before.
I meant to say 'love' with the context of what is shared between both heterosexual and homosexual couples; what drives them to get married and start a family. And I would also want you to become aware of the financial benefits occupied with marriage.
Marriage is not about finances. Marriage is about four fundamental components. First, the companionship of the people. Two, the reproduction of the people. Three, the satisfying of sexual desires. Four, the replication of Christ and His church. Homosexuality cannot be instituted in marriage, for it would fall short on the fourth point. Therefore, because marriage is a divine authorization by God, it cannot be changed. Furthermore, civic union can be used outside of marriage.
No, people are born with the natural inclination to be violent, which is their nature. This is the same thing as homosexual nature, for they are both psychological.
The key difference between homosexuals and murderers, (other than the fact homosexuals don't harm anyone), is that all human beings by nature need to love one another as well as have sex with each other. Human beings are naturally inclined to be violent but it isn't such a part of r biology as an inclination to sex. In society we feel the need to pair up with one another, almost expected of us in society. It's not like we get strong impulses to kill or assault like we do to have intercourse (yes I am referring to horniness. Which is easier? Preventing all assaults, or all relations? Obviously assaults. Homosexuals feel this no differently as we heterosexuals do. Homosexuality is found not only in our psychology but in our biology as well.
If simple desire is the basis for morality, then morality is based in preference and a bunch of hypothetical imperatives. Morality is universal and a categorical imperative, not based in happiness. You are downgrading morality to fit desire, which any person can do to justify their actions. It doesn't matter if someone has a natural inclination to do something; if it is immoral, then it should be condemned. Moreover, people do not have to have sex. People can find love with many different people; however, they do not require sexual relations with them.
If simple desire is the basis for morality, then morality is based in preference and a bunch of hypothetical imperatives.
It is not about desire as it is about ethics to me, the care for sentient life of all kind. Does it harm, or benefit sentient life?
Morality is universal and a categorical imperative, not based in happiness.
On the contrary, morality is completely based on our feelings and desires, that is all they are, approvals, and disapprovals based on our feelings. Morality is not objective, it is not universal, it is feeling. Even if morality is universal, can you prove your morality is right?
You are downgrading morality to fit desire, which any person can do to justify their actions. It doesn't matter if someone has a natural inclination to do something; if it is immoral, then it should be condemned.
What do you base morality on?
Moreover, people do not have to have sex. People can find love with many different people; however, they do not require sexual relations with them.
If it isn't hurting anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed sex?
It is not about desire as it is about ethics to me, the care for sentient life of all kind. Does it harm, or benefit sentient life?
Actually, homosexuality has horrible effects on the psychological aspect of the person, the physical aspect of the person, and the spiritual aspect of the person. So I would say that is a yes. Moreover, "the care of sentient life" is too broad to base ethics in. What does "care" entail?
On the contrary, morality is completely based on our feelings and desires, that is all they are, approvals, and disapprovals based on our feelings. Morality is not objective, it is not universal, it is feeling. Even if morality is universal, can you prove your morality is right?
Morality is not universal? So its okay for me to murder someone? Moreover, you are switching between ethics and morality, try to keep to one. Furthermore, believing in the Bible is the more rational thing to believe in.
What do you base morality on?
The Bible
If it isn't hurting anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed sex?
Everything affects everything. That is not an excuse.
Actually, homosexuality has horrible effects on the psychological aspect of the person, the physical aspect of the person, and the spiritual aspect of the person.
How so?
So I would say that is a yes. Moreover, "the care of sentient life" is too broad to base ethics in. What does "care" entail?
Well that is a broad explanation indeed, I won't explain the entire philosophy of ethics, it is based on what is harmful and benefiting of sentient life.
Morality is not universal? So its okay for me to murder someone? Moreover, you are switching between ethics and morality, try to keep to one.
Well it is not objectively wrong to kill anyone, though I do appose it for my own personal reasons. The universe doesn't care if you kill someone, but I do and would want to stop you from doing as such. Also I consider ethics to be its own morality.
Furthermore, believing in the Bible is the more rational thing to believe in.
How so?
Everything affects everything. That is not an excuse.
I could use that awful logic to be against everything, even people's right to live. Everything doesn't everything, what I do here in the U.S. does not affect bob in China. It is more important to understand how things effect other things, does homosexuality harm anyone? Does not allowing homosexuals that right affect them?
Phys: AIDS and other diseases are prominent in gay communities. It also is harmful for men to engage in sexual relations with one another because the anus is not meant to have things go up it.
Psych: the average homosexual has multiple sexual encounters with random strangers. Emotions are high and it is psychologically damaging to not be with someone you have had relations with.
Spiritually: you are fading form God.
Well that is a broad explanation indeed, I won't explain the entire philosophy of ethics, it is based on what is harmful and benefiting of sentient life.
Yet again, everything affects everything.
Well it is not objectively wrong to kill anyone, though I do appose it for my own personal reasons. The universe doesn't care if you kill someone, but I do and would want to stop you from doing as such. Also I consider ethics to be its own morality.
Murder is different from killing. So you find that murdering is not morally reprehensible? That is.... palm to face
I could use that awful logic to be against everything, even people's right to live. Everything doesn't everything, what I do here in the U.S. does not affect bob in China. It is more important to understand how things effect other things, does homosexuality harm anyone? Does not allowing homosexuals that right affect them?
Phys: AIDS and other diseases are prominent in gay communities. It also is harmful for men to engage in sexual relations with one another because the anus is not meant to have things go up it.
Which is also among straight people as well... surely and omnipotent god if truly was homophobic and loved straight people could have designed a better way of infecting gay people, without affecting straight people. Also, it is called hygiene, homosexuals simply have to keep up better with personal hygiene.
Psych: the average homosexual has multiple sexual encounters with random strangers. Emotions are high and it is psychologically damaging to not be with someone you have had relations with.
This is only a generalization, for the former there, some homosexuals wouldn't be like that, what about them? For the latter that is true for heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Yet again, everything affects everything.
Have you heard of the butterfly effect?
yes I have refer, your point here that I am suspecting has already been addressed.
Yes, which is why not everyone with an ethical point of view agree, I still prefer ethics to other moralities. Just because something is controversial doesn't make it obsolete... Everything is controversial. The question is, what is more harmful, and what is more beneficial?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEw8VzzXcjE
Watch the entire thing.
It is called making your own argument, you should be capable of that. No offense, I think links and what not should only be used for evidence, as it is a pet peeve of mine when others use another's argument as theirs. If you can't take things in and then express them yourself then what is the point of debating?
Murder is different from killing. So you find that murdering is not morally reprehensible? That is.... palm to face
I skipped this part of your argument by accident. Not objectively no, would you mind trying to have an intellectual conversation in debating your point with actual logic rather than try to sway me by hitting yourself in the head? It sure would make you seem so much less mentally handicapped.
Simply being retarded is not a sin. That is a weak analogy.
Sin doesn't exist. In order to prove sin, you must prove 1.) God exists, 2.) God disapproves of homosexuality, 3.) God is omnibenevolent.
Love does not require sex.
They deserve the same rights though. If heterosexuals can have sex, why can't homosexuals?
Marriage is defined as with a man and a woman; therefore, it homosexuals cannot be married.
This needs to be changed, why should we hold this tradition, and then for no reason at all exclude a minority from it. It's like if I decided to throw a house party for some unique occasion to my life and said "no blondes allowed". Why do we even have a tradition for straight people only?
Moreover, the entirety of homosexuals acts have been condemned and, because God said to be married and sin no longer, then homosexual marriage is contradictory.
Refer to my argument to sin.
It is fair. They have the same rights as any other person.
No they don't they aren't allowed to marry what gender they want while heterosexuals are. That isn't fair.
That doesn't matter. If one is born with a natural inclination to want sexual relations with another person, then under your logic, it should be allowed. You would have to change the argument to say that only reasonable people could be sexually active, which would then raise the question as to who is rational. Moreover, your "retardation" objection earlier is directly countered under your statement here. Furthermore, it would become a type of social darwinism, which is immoral.
It's not that if you are sexually attracted to something you have the right to fornicate with it, as much as homosexuality doesn't harm anyone.
Marriage is not about finances. Marriage is about four fundamental components. First, the companionship of the people.
Do homosexuals not deserve companionship with each other?
Two, the reproduction of the people.
Ok why isn't marriage revoked and obtained benefits owed back when reproduction hadn't ake effect? Why do we allow those whom can't reproduce to marry?
Three, the satisfying of sexual desires.
Do homosexuals not have that right?
Four, the replication of Christ and His church. Homosexuality cannot be instituted in marriage, for it would fall short on the fourth point. Therefore, because marriage is a divine authorization by God, it cannot be changed. Furthermore, civic union can be used outside of marriage.
Marriage doesn't solely belong to Christianity, as people of other faith, and atheists like myself marry all the time. What makes us and them so special? The concept of marriage predates Christianity. Also even if it was strictly Christian, not all Christian interpretations believe homosexuality to be a sin. Why should your interpretation be the only one recognized?
Sin doesn't exist. In order to prove sin, you must prove 1.) God exists, 2.) God disapproves of homosexuality, 3.) God is omnibenevolent.
Historians alike believe that Jesus was real. 1) The grave that He was buried in was empty. 2) Hundreds of people saw Him after His death, which is why many atheistic historians have said that He was not really dead after all and simply not buried in the grave. 3) His Apostles rejected the notion of Jesus dying and being resurrected at first, but afterwards completely believed it (in one sense were converted) and spread the news. 4) Paul, a radical anti-Christian, was converted at the supposed experience of Jesus. 5) All of this has been historically advocated by a number of historians, including secular ones. Therefore, according to historians Jesus was who He said He was. If He was who He said He was, then the Bible is true and homosexuality is a sin. Moreover, He died intentionally for people who hated Him, which is omnibenevolence.
They deserve the same rights though. If heterosexuals can have sex, why can't homosexuals?
It is a sin. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights.
This needs to be changed, why should we hold this tradition, and then for no reason at all exclude a minority from it. It's like if I decided to throw a house party for some unique occasion to my life and said "no blondes allowed". Why do we even have a tradition for straight people only?
You can't change what the intrinsic nature of something is.
No they don't they aren't allowed to marry what gender they want while heterosexuals are. That isn't fair.
Heterosexuals can't marry whatever gender they want. They can only marry people from the opposite sex, just like homosexuals.
It's not that if you are sexually attracted to something you have the right to fornicate with it, as much as homosexuality doesn't harm anyone.
So simply because someone has a sexual desire, they do not have the right to have sexual relations with that being. Everything affects everything.
Do homosexuals not deserve companionship with each other?
They can have companionship with one another. I can have companionship with a man as well.
Ok why isn't marriage revoked and obtained benefits owed back when reproduction hadn't ake effect? Why do we allow those whom can't reproduce to marry?
Reproduction in a broad sense, meaning the bringing up a child, should be done with a mother and a father.
Do homosexuals not have that right?
If one's sexual desires are immoral, then no.
Marriage doesn't solely belong to Christianity, as people of other faith, and atheists like myself marry all the time. What makes us and them so special? The concept of marriage predates Christianity. Also even if it was strictly Christian, not all Christian interpretations believe homosexuality to be a sin. Why should your interpretation be the only one recognized?
Marriage is an institution of God to replicate the story of God.
Historians alike believe that Jesus was real. 1) The grave that He was buried in was empty. 2) Hundreds of people saw Him after His death, which is why many atheistic historians have said that He was not really dead after all and simply not buried in the grave. 3) His Apostles rejected the notion of Jesus dying and being resurrected at first, but afterwards completely believed it (in one sense were converted) and spread the news. 4) Paul, a radical anti-Christian, was converted at the supposed experience of Jesus. 5) All of this has been historically advocated by a number of historians, including secular ones.
Links? I heard they discovered Jesus, however I haven't heard evidence of Jesus being resurrected, you'd think it would have been all over the news.
Therefore, according to historians Jesus was who He said He was. If He was who He said He was, ten the Bible is true and homosexuality is a sin.
This claim if were true would only prove somethings about the bible to be true, not all of it. Jesus being resurrected does not follow homosexuality being a sin. Not all interpretations believe that.
Moreover, He died intentionally for people who hated Him, which is omnibenevolence.
Omnibenevolence is not possible at this point or at least proven possible because there is no evidence of morality being objective.
It is a sin. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights.
No you are allowing heterosexuals what they want while not allowing that for homosexuals.
You can't change what the intrinsic nature of something is.
Marriage is a social construct of the mind, how is it only natural for heterosexuals?
Heterosexuals can't marry whatever gender they want. They can only marry people from the opposite sex, just like homosexuals.
Heterosexuals only want to marry the opposite gender otherwise they aren't heterosexual, so yes they can marry whatever gender they want, because by definition they only want the opposite gender.
So simply because someone has a sexual desire, they do not have the right to have sexual relations with that being. Everything affects everything.
To me nothing is immoral until shown how it can harm someone.
They can have companionship with one another. I can have companionship with a man as well.
Not in the same way heterosexuals can have companionship with whom they love.
Reproduction in a broad sense, meaning the bringing up a child, should be done with a mother and a father.
Why?
If one's sexual desires are immoral, then no.
I have yet to be swayed to disapprove of homosexuality.
Marriage is an institution of God to replicate the story of God.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}" -Josephus. And if you want to challenge the fact that Josephus' writings were tampered with, then http://web1.calbaptist.edu/jcate/cst100/PDF%20Docs/5%20-%20Josephus%20on%20Jesus.pdf
"The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as ‘Yehoshua’):
“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten. Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters. He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: “This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.” Yeshu replied, “The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.’” Queen Helene asked the Sages: “What he says, is it in your Torah?” They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment. Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: “It is spoken of me, ‘I will ascend into heaven.’” He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone…Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages." http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/ This means that the grace was empty. The Apostles before the empty tomb did not believe that Jesus was to rise again, because the Jewish notion of the Christ was to be a savior king who would take back Israel for them, not to die. Therefore, the only excuse for the Apostles, and radical anti-Christians, turning all of a sudden deciding to believe in the resurrection is proof that Jesus was who He said He was. You might say that He never died. However, Tacitus says otherwise, “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
You might say, "The Apostles stole the body." However, “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
Moreover, Jesus' predictions came true “Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14) In fact, He was said to have mystical powers: “Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”
Jesus was who He said He was, which was the Son of God. He advocated for the Bible. Jesus came to die for the sins of those who hated Him, God created the universe, which means He cares, and much more, which says that He was omnibenevolent. Therefore, because He advocates for the Bible and He was omnibenevolent, we can trust it. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, therefore, it is a sin.
This claim if were true would only prove somethings about the bible to be true, not all of it. Jesus being resurrected does not follow homosexuality being a sin. Not all interpretations believe that.
Refer to before.
Omnibenevolence is not possible at this point or at least proven possible because there is no evidence of morality being objective.
Well, if morality is not objective, then everyone is omnibenevolent. Therefore, God is omnibenevolent. If morality is objective, then there must be a moral prescriber. If God is all-powerful, then He must be that very prescriber. Therefore, He is omnibenevolent.
No you are allowing heterosexuals what they want while not allowing that for homosexuals.
Neither homosexuals, nor heterosexuals can murder, steal, or practice homosexuality. They can both get married to a person of the opposite sex, love, and be loved. Yet again, they are equal because equality does not come from desire. If it did, then if I wanted to murder, then I would be discriminated against for not being allowed to do it.
Marriage is a social construct of the mind, how is it only natural for heterosexuals?
Marriage is a God given institution.
Heterosexuals only want to marry the opposite gender otherwise they aren't heterosexual, so yes they can marry whatever gender they want, because by definition they only want the opposite gender.
Who says that heterosexuals only want to marry people of the opposite sex? Have you seen I now pronounce you chuck and larry? There could be many reason for wanting to get married but that doesn't make it moral. They are still equal.
To me nothing is immoral until shown how it can harm someone.
Everything affects everything. Homophobes have psychological dispositions to hate and be afraid of homosexuals. Therefore, to allow homosexuality, it is psychologically damaging to them. Therefore, it is immoral, in your own logic, to allow homosexuality.
Not in the same way heterosexuals can have companionship with whom they love.
I can love a man and a man can love me. However, we do not require sexual relations.
Why?
Because men and women are different and have different natural abilities and tendencies.
I have yet to be swayed to disapprove of homosexuality.
Sorry I haven't responded in so long, I was on vacation in Hawaii, and doing all of this over the phone, I did not expect the argument to get so lengthy. So let's get started.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}" -Josephus. And if you want to challenge the fact that Josephus' writings were tampered with, then
The problem here is that, those we have no reason to think those historical documents are completely reliable. They were written back a long time ago, we did not see what they see, we did not experience what they experience? How do we know that the conclusion that they came to was logical? Or they saw what they think they saw?
We found physical evidence that a man named Jesus existed but no physical evidence that he was truly immortal or anything other than human.
Jesus was who He said He was, which was the Son of God. He advocated for the Bible. Jesus came to die for the sins of those who hated Him, God created the universe, which means He cares, and much more, which says that He was omnibenevolent.
According to historical texts, not any physical proof. Also even if any of these texts were true that doesn't prove omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence, is based on objective morality which we have no reason to think exists. Nothing is inherently wrong, it is all based upon our feelings, emotions, that's the reason we have morals. I hate to say it but murder is only "wrong" because we highly disapprove of it. I disapprove of it as well, but morality is nothing more, and nothing less than socialization and evolutionary driven human behavior. Even something like child molestation isn't inherently wrong, don't get me wrong it makes my stomach turn, but it being wrong is not based on any logic, to people "it just is" which is circular logic.
Well, if morality is not objective, then everyone is omnibenevolent.
It means nobody is omnibenevolent, or omni-maleovent, nobody is inherently right or wrong, it merely means that "right" and "wrong" is no more of a judgement than "cool" and "lame" we don't like to hear that morality is completely subjective, because morality is important to us. Just because morals are subjective doesn't mean they can't be important, but what is the reason that they are important? because they are there for a somewhat personal reason. I have a simple ethical point of view on things because I care about sentient life, I am against child molestation not because it is wrong because it is wrong, but because I care about that child and whether or not it is being harmed.
Neither homosexuals, nor heterosexuals can murder, steal, or practice homosexuality. They can both get married to a person of the opposite sex, love, and be loved. Yet again, they are equal because equality does not come from desire. If it did, then if I wanted to murder, then I would be discriminated against for not being allowed to do it.
The difference here is murder harms someone, and I am against that. While I see no reason to be against homosexuality because it doesn't harm anybody.
Who says that heterosexuals only want to marry people of the opposite sex? Have you seen I now pronounce you chuck and larry? There could be many reason for wanting to get married but that doesn't make it moral. They are still equal.
Okay let me rephrase that, heterosexuals only want to marry the opposite sex for romantic reasons.
Everything affects everything. Homophobes have psychological dispositions to hate and be afraid of homosexuals. Therefore, to allow homosexuality, it is psychologically damaging to them. Therefore, it is immoral, in your own logic, to allow homosexuality.
This is where my ideals of justice come in which, yes, I acknowledge is based on my subjective opinion. However ethics is based on a subjective feeling, to accomplish it's goal is somewhat more objective. Which is more harmful? Not having the freedom to fall in love in life, and not be accepted in society? or having to co-exist with a minority that you hate? Hatred towards homosexuals is irrational, as homosexuals do not have any physical effect on heterosexuals lives, homophobes can learn to ignore homosexuals, just as sexists can learn to not be discriminatory towards a certain sex, or a racist can learn to do the same. You don't like homosexuals, don't hang out with them. It is however irrational, to limit someone else of their rights of which have no effect on you, because you hate seeing them have rights, that implies entitlement in my book.
Because men and women are different and have different natural abilities and tendencies.
That doesn't really explain... or sway me to be against homosexuality.
What?
Exactly what I said, morality to me is about how you think sentient life should be treated, how I want life to treat each other. I prefer people to allow homosexuals to love each other and be allowed to do everything with each other opposite sex couples can do, because it makes them happy and doesn't affect anyone else other than those whom are irrational hateful which I would argue is a psychological problem. Thus it is not a matter of proving what is right or wrong, but a matter of convincing me.
All our rebuttals can be countered by Bart Ehrman who affirms that there was an empty tomb discovered by women, people saw Him after His death, and that His Apostles radically changed their hearts. He is not a Christian only on the grounds of philosophical naturalism. History is proof God. If you don't want to accept Jesus, that is logically fine, but to be consistent, then you would have to disavow all historical knowledge and scientific knowledge, because do you know whether or not those experiments are true or not?
History is proof God. If you don't want to accept Jesus, that is logically fine, but to be consistent, then you would have to disavow all historical knowledge and scientific knowledge, because do you know whether or not those experiments are true or not?
As Carl Sagan states, "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence". It is one thing to suspect, that a certain inventor invented such and such through documentation of it, it is another thing to believe that an immortal man walked the earth because a few people claimed that they saw such a thing in the past, it is whole other thing to believe claims relevant about our time period as well that we cannot detect right now but apparently people in the past could. Otherwise all past mythologies are validated as truths, the Norse gods, the Greek gods, all the ancient gods of volcanoes, and skies, and the seas, and earth, etc. All of mythology has to be considered validated, as the people of those times are documented in claiming that they experienced their own mythology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEw8VzzXcjE
Everything comes back down to this: morality and homosexuality come back to this.
Like I say, I expect you to make your own arguments rather than use others, that is what I do, that is what I expect of others. If you truly are thinking for yourself and going with what makes sense to you, that video should have clicked in well enough for you to be able to take in all valuable points from said video and re-express them in your own words on here summarized. I would not expect my opponent to watch a two hour video of pure argumentation, and I hold that as a personal principle of mine.
The only way anyone can have sexual relations is through marriage
You don't allow gay marriage, sucks to be gay I guess.
The Bible doesn't say one group of people can have sex with children, but another group can't. The Bible doesn't say one group of people can have sex with animals, but another group of people can. The Bible doesn't say one group of people can kill others and another group can't.
Jesus came to Earth and died for our sins. Let's just throw homosexuals in there. There are tons of sins in the Old Testament that Jesus was able to cancel out. Just add homosexuality to the list. We have shown that you can interpret the Bible in a way that allows it.
You/we have the freedom to make homosexuality not considered a sin. It takes a minor change to start believing that homosexuals are not sinning, and it can be supported in you big book of fiction. You can stop being an oppressor and be considered one of the good guys. It's up to you really. Good luck.
I'm not Christian but I had to speak up about this.
Apparently if you can take bits and pieces from the bible and twist them to your own desires, as homophobes have, working is a sin.
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" Matthew 6:24
I want to bend that 'serving two masters' part to say I can only serve God, therefore woking is a sin.
To some close minded bigoted Christians Homosexuality is a sin but this is unchristian in itself as you are judging someone else which is against the teachings of Jesus. The thing about the Bible is it should be read in context a lot of people will take a verse out of context and use it to condemn people when read in context a lot of these verses condemning homosexuality are in fact not.
No its not but wearing mixed fibres and working on a Sunday is but I have yet to see anyone condemning that and those two sins are a lot more prolific than homosexuality
Sunday isn't the only holy day, the holyday is anyday you take out of the week to just not work and make it special to God. Thats basicly how it works, the pharasies added a lot on to it like you can't carry your rug and so on.
What about the filthy sin of mixed fibres, if I wear Polytester will I be cast forever into a fiery pit? I really think God has bigger things to worry about than who wears dodgy clothes and who has sex with who