Instigator
Points: 7

Does The Bible Tell Christians To Be Homophobic?

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 4
Description
INTRO
We will be debating over whether the Bible commands its followers to be homophobic.
-- TOPIC --
Does The Bible Tell Christians To Be Homophobic?
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Con waives; Pro Opening argument
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Close
Definitions
Homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
Round 1
Published:
Waiving
Published:
This is my first debate.
Let's make this one count

Yes, The bible states that Christians should be homophobic

The Catholic Church states that one should not have sexual relations to the same sex.

In Leviticus 18 & 20 it states that "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death".
This statement on itself dictates that Christians should avoid being homosexual.

According to history, the Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those who have transgressed.

This on itself too dictates that Christians should be homophobic and punish those who otherwise do so







ps. English isn't actually my first language so please consider the grammatical errors that I've made 

This statement  : "the Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those who have transgressed.
"
was taken from :

Round 2
Published:
In Leviticus 18 & 20 it states that "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death".
This statement on itself dictates that Christians should avoid being homosexual.
This statement doesn't dictate homophobia. In other words, we should avoid it, yes, but it doesn't tell us to treat those who do differently.

Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Ecclesiastes 7:20: "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

These two scriptures tell us that everyone sins and that sinning means you will die. The Catholic Church's justification for homophobia is simply saying that homosexuality is a sin and therefore justifies homophobia. However, everyone has sinned, meaning that we must treat everyone in this manner, including ourselves because we have sinned as well. However, that's ludicrous!

Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

As we can see here, it is not our place to judge others, because we are guilty of the same things.

James 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

So according to this, anyone who sins once is guilty of all sins, which would include homosexuality. As I showed above, everyone has sinned, which means that everyone is guilty of homosexuality, which just shows the hypocrisy of the church.

Also, the Catholic Church is not equivalent to the Bible, so citing its practices does not prove anything. You must prove that the Bible encourages homophobia.

Over to you! :)
Published:
These two scriptures tell us that everyone sins and that sinning means you will die. The Catholic Church's justification for homophobia is simply saying that homosexuality is a sin and therefore justifies homophobia. However, everyone has sinned, meaning that we must treat everyone in this manner, including ourselves because we have sinned as well. However, that's ludicrous!
  • Yes everyone has sinned, but there are degrees of sins. It simply means that committing murder isn't the same as being a homophile.
  • Yes we should avoid it, but it doesn't mean that we should be a homophile. 
  • Yes God loves everything that he has created but he would still punish on those who defy his given laws.
  • God loves everything and everyone that he created. Yes he accepts us for who we are but the thing is homosexuality is still a sin, meaning that we should at all costs avoid performing it.


  • God has sacrificed his only son to repent all of our sins, but that doesn't mean we should commit those crimes again.
  • God didn't only sacrifice his only son to repent us of the sins that we have committed but it was also for us to learn from our mistakes. 
  • So doing said sins not only add insult to injury but makes us look like that we have forgotten what God has done for us.
As to what Jesus has done. Yes he did sacrifice himself for our salvation but this doesn't mean that we should keep on doing sins.

Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

As we can see here, it is not our place to judge others, because we are guilty of the same things.
This is true. We should not judge others or rather let God do the bidding for those who chose to repel God's will and follow their own


So according to this, anyone who sins once is guilty of all sins, which would include homosexuality. As I showed above, everyone has sinned, which means that everyone is guilty of homosexuality, which just shows the hypocrisy of the church.
As what I have said. There are degrees of sins, saying that committing one crime makes us commit all?
No. This means that if you have committed a sin there is also a possibility that you will also commit other sins.



Thank you for giving me a good first debate :D
You gave me a nice response.

Back to you sir!


Round 3
Published:
Yes everyone has sinned, but there are degrees of sins. It simply means that committing murder isn't the same as being a homophile.
All sin sends one to hell, as I showed in Romans 6:23, not just homosexuality.

Yes we should avoid it, but it doesn't mean that we should be a homophile. 
I think you meant to say homophobic, not homophile. And, yes, I agree with that point!

Yes God loves everything that he has created but he would still punish on those who defy his given laws.
This is true.

God loves everything and everyone that he created. Yes he accepts us for who we are but the thing is homosexuality is still a sin, meaning that we should at all costs avoid performing it.
That is essentially left up between the believer and God. As I showed with Matthew 7:1, it is not our place to judge what another person does. However, God isn't going to cut off a Christian because they are homosexual; if he did, he would then have to cut off everyone else because everyone has sinned. This in no way promotes being homophobic.

God has sacrificed his only son to repent all of our sins, but that doesn't mean we should commit those crimes again.
God didn't only sacrifice his only son to repent us of the sins that we have committed but it was also for us to learn from our mistakes. 
So doing said sins not only add insult to injury but makes us look like that we have forgotten what God has done for us.
None of these show being homophobic being promoted by the Bible.

As to what Jesus has done. Yes he did sacrifice himself for our salvation but this doesn't mean that we should keep on doing sins.
Again, whether we should or should not continue doing a certain action has nothing to do with whether the Bible promotes being homophobic or not.

As what I have said. There are degrees of sins, saying that committing one crime makes us commit all?
No. This means that if you have committed a sin there is also a possibility that you will also commit other sins.
That completely twists the scripture. The scripture says nothing of the sort. 

James 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

It doesn't say "he might become guilty of some in the future possibly." It says he "IS guilty of ALL."


Thank you for giving me a good first debate :D
You gave me a nice response.
Of course! Over to you! :)
Published:
I think you meant to say homophobic, not homophile. And, yes, I agree with that point!
I have badly worded the statement here. Apologies to you my sir.
That completely twists the scripture. The scripture says nothing of the sort. 

James 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

It doesn't say "he might become guilty of some in the future possibly." It says he "IS guilty of ALL."
Like what I said there are possibilities of you committing more sins. He knows everything that will happen that's why it is stated as "IS GUILTY OF ALL"
I have asked my parish priest about this, and he says that what i said was the latter of the meaning.

All sin sends one to hell, as I showed in Romans 6:23, not just homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a part of Lust which make us commit fornication. 
Lust is a part of the Seven Deadly Sins. Which is more than enough to make us become homophobic




Once again, Thank you for giving me a good response.
Back to you sir :D
Round 4
Published:
Like what I said there are possibilities of you committing more sins. He knows everything that will happen that's why it is stated as "IS GUILTY OF ALL"
I have asked my parish priest about this, and he says that what i said was the latter of the meaning.
Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest solution is to simply read the scripture, which says "guilty of all," rather than interpolating an interpretation that fits a certain view.

Homosexuality is a part of Lust which make us commit fornication. 
Lust is a part of the Seven Deadly Sins. Which is more than enough to make us become homophobic
Homosexuality is not "part of lust." They are completely different acts. Also, saying that something is one of the seven deadly sins is not an argument to say that the Bible is saying we should discriminate against that person. If that was the case, the Bible is telling us to discriminate against those who get angry, those who are prideful, and many other sins.

However, we know this isn't true because the Bible literally says not to judge in Matthew 7:1, as well as in other scriptures.

Over to you! :)
Published:
Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest solution is to simply read the scripture, which says "guilty of all," rather than interpolating an interpretation that fits a certain view.
Occam's Razor shouldn't be applied here.
The simplest solution isn't the answer here.
Also using Occam's Razor seems a bit hypocritical in this situation.

BrotherDThomas : 
THIS ISSUE: In Leviticus 18 & 20 it states that "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death".

YOUR RESPONSE: This statement on itself dictates that Christians should avoid being homosexual. This statement doesn't dictate homophobia. In other words, we should avoid it, yes, but it doesn't tell us to treat those who do differently.

WHAT YOU ARE MISSING: HELLO? We have to admit that our God Jesus stated with specificity that Homosexuals should be MURDERED! Therefore, who are we to say that Jesus is wrong in this respect? Do you want to tell Jesus in prayer tonight that we shouldn't MURDER Gays as he commands? Huh?
I have to add this one.

However, we know this isn't true because the Bible literally says not to judge in Matthew 7:1, as well as in other scriptures.
Meaning of judge : form an opinion or conclusion about.
You most definitely cannot judge the fact that God himself ordered homosexuals to be put to death.




Back to you Sir! :D
Round 5
Published:
Occam's Razor shouldn't be applied here.
The simplest solution isn't the answer here.
Also using Occam's Razor seems a bit hypocritical in this situation.

My opponent fails to give any reason whatsoever why Occam's Razor doesn't apply and why an obscure interpretation should be used over the actual scripture.

BrotherDThomas : 
THIS ISSUE: In Leviticus 18 & 20 it states that "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death".

YOUR RESPONSE: This statement on itself dictates that Christians should avoid being homosexual. This statement doesn't dictate homophobia. In other words, we should avoid it, yes, but it doesn't tell us to treat those who do differently.

WHAT YOU ARE MISSING: HELLO? We have to admit that our God Jesus stated with specificity that Homosexuals should be MURDERED! Therefore, who are we to say that Jesus is wrong in this respect? Do you want to tell Jesus in prayer tonight that we shouldn't MURDER Gays as he commands? Huh?
I am not obligated to answer this because it is from the comments, and getting help from the comments is against the rules. However, in the spirit of the debate, I will. 

The scripture does not order anyone to go out and kill homosexuals. It just says that they shall be put to death. Do you know who else is put to death? LITERALLY EVERYBODY.

Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

So, because of that, that is a non-unique argument. Furthermore, as I showed, everyone is guilty of the entire law if they've sinned even once, which means everyone would be subject to that punishment.

James 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

So, my opponent's argument is basically that, because homosexuality is a sin, the Bible is, therefore, saying to discriminate against people who practice it. However, that means that it is saying to discriminate against people who sin, which is EVERYONE.

Ecclesiastes 7:20: "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

So my opponent's argument is, essentially, that we must go around and kill everyone, including ourselves. This reductio ad absurdum shows just how ridiculous such an argument is and how unfounded it is.

John 15:12: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."

Meaning of judge : form an opinion or conclusion about.
You most definitely cannot judge the fact that God himself ordered homosexuals to be put to death.
Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

The scripture does not deal with facts. It is talking about human beings. I don't even understand how that argument applies to this debate.
Published:
My opponent fails to give any reason whatsoever why Occam's Razor doesn't apply and why an obscure interpretation should be used over the actual scripture.
The meaning of the actual scripture here is the one that I have mentioned.
As I have said you only used Occam's Razor for is the sole reason that it fits your "certain view".
Occam's Razor only destroy's the purpose of the scripture (In this situation).

I am not obligated to answer this because it is from the comments, and getting help from the comments is against the rules. However, in the spirit of the debate, I will. 
I am deeply sorry to have disobeyed one of the rules.

The scripture does not order anyone to go out and kill homosexuals. It just says that they shall be put to death. Do you know who else is put to death? LITERALLY EVERYBODY.
put to death : usually intentionally or knowingly. penalise, penalize, punish. impose a penalty on; inflict punishment on.
Like what I have said. Occam's Razor isn't always the answer.

So, my opponent's argument is basically that, because homosexuality is a sin, the Bible is, therefore, saying to discriminate against people who practice it. However, that means that it is saying to discriminate against people who sin, which is EVERYONE.
I have only mentioned homosexuality here HOWEVER he keeps pointing out that EVERYONE should be punished for it. 
Remember that we are only talking about homosexuality here. If I said that someone should be punished for homosexuality DOESN'T mean that everyone who has done a sin should receive the same punishment.

John 15:12: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
So you're basically saying that we shouldn't follow his other ORDERS and just live life while forgetting that we are committing SINS?
That isn't the case here. YES God said that we should love eachother, BUT disobeyers must still be PUNISHED for their wrongdoings.

The scripture does not deal with facts. It is talking about human beings. I don't even understand how that argument applies to this debate
BUT  God himself has stated that homosexuals must be punished for their wrongdoings. THAT IS AN ORDER.
Us humans cannot judge others as for this BUT we are still able to penalize through GOD'S ORDERS

Thank you for this debate sir :D
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

************************************************************************
#79
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
A=Argument
The BOP was on Pro so I have grouped his arguments
1.Leviticus Quote
2.History
3.Homosexuality is sin
Con arguments
1. Matthew Quote
A1-Pro said-"Yes we should avoid it, but it doesn't mean that we should be a homophile."Conceding the Point
A2-This argument is irrelevent. The Debate resolution is that Does the Bible Tell Christians to be Homophobic? This talked about history.
A3-Again,irrelevent. Doesnt fit thesis or topic.
A1-Both agrees
Arguments-Con
Sources-Tied>No one used any sources outside of Bible
S&P-Ties>No problem with this
Conduct-Tied>Both sides had Great conduct!Great job
Good debate
#78
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Lmao I just noticed that you skipped #10 in the rules HAHAHHAHA
Contender
#77
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
The Old Testament is a part of the Bible.
#76
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
The Letiviticus quote was actually in the old testement?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhHamDQOgjw
#75
Added:
shoutout to BrotherDthomas
#74
Added:
--> @Boopy
Alrighty, lol
Instigator
#73
Added:
--> @Speedrace
History is my special field
I don't think I'll tackle anything about Religion for now
Contender
#72
Added:
--> @Boopy
No, but feel free to challenge me
Instigator
#71
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I'm still new to this debate thing and still soft.
Thank you for informing me this
Contender
#70
Added:
--> @Boopy
Closing rounds are a weird thing, because they are both where we want to give everything, but also where we should be putting in the least effort (most things of consequence should have already been said).
A tactic some unmentionables use is a Final Round Blitzkrieg, which is holding off arguments until the other side truly cannot respond. I advice judges to dismiss these for being inorganic to the debate.
#69
Added:
--> @Speedrace
I'm trying to look for debates about history (especially WW1 & WW2)
Contender
#68
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Anyways about new debates?
Got anything for me
Contender
#67
Added:
--> @Speedrace
What the fuck did I do to you
I'm just trying to find new debates
Contender
#66
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
How did you even see that comment? XD
Instigator
#65
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Written before reading the debate: While many Christians are X (homophobic), the question is were they told to be that way by Y (the bible). Of course, Christians who are not X is not proof against Y telling them they should be… Similarly if Y tells them not to be Z (homosexual), it has little baring on the debate, as not being something and being prejudiced against other people doing it are not the same thing (unless a debater shows otherwise, which would not be impossible, but still prohibitively difficult).
Gist:
Pro all but conceded at the start of R2 (“Yes we should avoid it, but it doesn't mean that we should be a homophile” he repeats this under other phrasings, to just we shouldn’t ourselves be homosexuals, but we should also not be homophobes according to the bible). … From there the debate is largely con trying to show that God (or at least the bible) too isn’t homophobic, which is a nice bonus, but a little off topic. The debate ends with pro making a point that we should act out God’s punishments, but this was not supported with biblical evidence; and it came out of left field.
1. Leviticus
Y says kill Z. Con counters by reminding us (with two biblical passages) that the bible says everyone is a sinner who will die, so argues that one particular sin and death is no different. The death spoken of us not a literal one. There’s some talk of capital S sins, and Occam’s Razor, but none of it gets past con’s initial counter.
2. History
Irrelevant side point (a group of Christians were X, which does not prove they were obeying Y). This is an appeal to tradition, without supporting the reason behind the tradition. As con puts it “Also, the Catholic Church is not equivalent to the Bible.”
3. Matthew
A little biased here, as Matthew is my gold standard for biblical books. Con used Matthew to show that we’re explicitly told not judge others (which combines nicely with the previous bit that we’re all sinners, otherwise it might fall flat). Pro agrees.
4. Seven Deadly Sins
I could see the start to an interesting point forming here, but it needed a lot more support (I hate saying more biblical passages, but pulling the line from the bible about the sin of lust would have been a great starting place to make this a real contention).
---
Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. None of pro’s contentions held against con’s rebuttals. The most important two are biblical passages, and con clearly won both.
Sources: tied
Debate never left the bible.
Spelling and Grammar: tied
I could imagine someone assigning this, but pro gave fair warning that English is his second language, so errors are not malicious.
Conduct: tied
No personal attacks or any other problems stood out.