God hates homosexuality

CLAIM 1: GOD is Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
By definition, God had those qualities. Now let me prove why this claim would not be true.

Since God by definition simply doesn't exist, he cannot hate anything. Something that doesn't exist doesn't and can't do anything. 

I don’t even want to get into how much of a piece of trash somebody has to be, to run kritik on a resolution they created, especially when they implied in the debate description that god exists. My first temptation is to run a kritik on kritik’s themselves, but honestly most of the judges on this site are borderline retarded and won’t be able to comprehend it.

This will be simple. First God hates the act of homosexuality (dudes fucking each other in the ass and sucking dick). I believe my opponent is going to concede the point the bible says that, but in case he doesn’t I will provide a few bible verses.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Right there, god hates faggy behavior.

Leviticus 18:22

'You (men) shall not lie with r a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Other areas condemning men taking It in the ass are

Leviticus 20:1
Romans 1:26-27


1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Jude 6-7
Romans 1:18


Unfortunately I can’t spend too much time on this topic because my opponent has not only asked me to prove that the biblical God hates homosexuality, but that he in fact exists.


Concerning hate. What people should know is the bible was not originally written in English and that perfect translations of some words do not exist. The biblical word for hate is one of them.


We should use the word hate in the biblical context since this debate is about the Abrahamic, biblical God. In the bible the word hate means really to “love less than”. https://biblehub.com/topical/h/hate.htm
In modern parlance we use the word hate differently, so when we say god hates homosexuality in this debate it merely means that when it comes to your sex life, he would prefer you stick your dick in vagina than in a man’s ass. He may actually love for two men to fuck, but he just loves it less than a man and a woman fucking.


My opponent has provided no evidence that the God of the bible is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent it is defamation to claim God is any of those things. The definition of God is


“a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/god


It is hard to come up with a precise definition, but this definition is good, and I won’t be abusing it. The concept of an all knowing, all powerful and omnipresent God is not true, and not a biblical concept.


1. God is not all knowing
Genesis 11:4 -9 – Tower of Babel;: God “comes down” to see what the people are up to.

• Genesis 6:6 – And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. An omniscient LORD would have no reason to repent for he would have known in advance how his creations would turn out.
  
• Genesis 18:20-21 – “Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.””
  

2. god is not all powerful.


In Genesis 32, some random Jew gets challenged by God to a fist fight, and as bad as jews are at fighting the random Jew (Jacob) still managed to pretty much whip God’s ass.


3. God is not omnipresent, In the Garden of Eden he has no clue where adam and eve are and have to call out to them, only to find them hiding and he got pissed that they were covered and he could not see their genitals. Genesis 3:8-13


The christian God is not the strawman con sets up.




I guess Con’s main arguments are that God doesn’t exist. I want to address this in 2 ways. The first is by pointing out, the biblical God could be proven false by him and he would still lose this debate. The second part of the argument is to prove the biblical God exists. The second argument should be unnecessary and I am sacrificing characters to make it, but it is there for judges who just can’t understand the argument is not necessary.


1. Language sometimes implies things and sometimes it doesn’t. Anyone familiar with the english language knows that when I state Superman can fly, I am not saying superman exists. When I say that Spongebob wears square pants, it does not literally mean spongebob exists. If I say that Spock is a Vulcan, I am not saying that he or the Vulcan’s exist. I am merely explaining the attributes of the character. If God does not exist than saying he hates, fruitcakes, means the character God as portrayed in the bible hates fruits (fags).


Even Con understands this is how words work, because he states “God is not omnipresent”, so how can he attribute the quality of “not omnipresent” to God, if we can’t apply attributes to works of fiction? The answer is that he was trying to exploit an odd often untalked about attribute of the english language, and messed up by using the weird way language works to push his argument.


2. Jesus walks
We have a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. https://www.debate.org/debates/Jesus-Existed/1/ It’s not really debatable, There are historians from that time who are trusted today and wrote of Jesus, such as Josephus Paul and Tacitus, to name a few, but certainly not an exhaustive list of historians who were aware of Jesus when he lived. Besides this,


Jesus was seen as a deity, and yet we have mundane things that make him look bad included in the bible. If he was made up some of these things embarassing to believers should not have been placed in the bible. It is one thing to lie to make yourself sound good, but silly to lie about things that shame you. So historians usually give more merit to winesses who writ embarrassing facts about themselves. The disciples would repeatedly deny Jesus, He spoke ill of his own family referring to them as Satan once, he hung out with whores and tax collectors. When people lie it is not to make themselves look worse, so we can trust their testimony a lot more.
Jesus was resurrected

The entire basis of the christian religion is not that the bible is 100% accurate, or that God is good or anything like that. The religion is based on Jesus declaring himself God and then proving it by resurrecting himself from the dead.

We have witnesses to seeing the resurrected Jesus who knew him personally and believed they saw Jesus so much that they died rather than renounce that truth. http://magazine.biola.edu/article/13-fall/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f/
If these men and women were lying, they would not take the lie so far that they would subject themselves to torture and death.

Jesus appeared to crowds for 12 weeks after his resurrection and appeared before people who knew him personally and let them touch his wounds.

Think about this. Jesus was reported to have talked before crowds up to 500 people in corinthians. https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-6.htm

These words were written in 59 AD https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/newtestament/section7/

Jesus died in 33 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus

If somebody was lying about a crowd of 500 seeing jesus in 59 AD, as well as all the other sightings which contain specific geographic locations of these events than they would look like idiots to the people in those areas and be called on their shit. People who were 20 years old in 33 ad, would just be 59 when corinthians was written and call the newly formed “cult” on their shit.


The fact is Jesus is God and proved it by surviving death and by performing all of his miracles, and that Jesus would prefer if we don’t suck each others dicks. Vote pro

Ok, then, I, am, sorry, period, period.

First, don't use the term "fag". It is disrespectful and offensive. If you don't want to be labeled a homophobic person, then don't use it.

Second, I give the counter to your argument in the form of a link.

The term "homosexual" is not formally used until after this bible sentence has been created. In other words, God does not hate homosexuality itself, but he hates lust in homosexuality. This is like that the same God, does not hate heterosexuality, but dislikes adultery because it is similar to homosexuality in this context: overly-sexual behavior and lust in any sexuality. In other words, it is the lust part of homosexuality that attracted the hate, not homosexuality's base and fundamentals.

I have a video that represents what kind of homosexuality God hates. In the video, there is a flamboyant man who has penis-shaped things on his desk, and there is a normal-looking man who is just working on his desk without anything strange. The former would be the type that God hates, not the latter. 

Men should not lust over a man just like hs shall not just over a woman. It is the lust that makes it bad, not homosexuality itself. These quotes refer to lust instead of love. 

God also tells us to love God as well as love others as yourself. Think that, Why would God hate homosexuals? Homosexuals aren't subhuman or immoral either. The reason behind this may be tradition because there is no other view otherwise. You might argue that God can see the future and he is just homophobic just like some of the toxic people online, but I argue that from all of the flaws of God, all the mistakes, all his behaviors, such as ordering humans to do things he can do himself or to make mistakes(such as THIS). Since God cannot see the future and God is most-likely made based on the present view of humans, he would have the same view as the humans.

Now, this may argue from your point in which God would hate gay people like the people, but I argue, no.

For your quotes, I will give an entire document about why you are wrong. These talk better than I do, and I am willing to use any just measures to explain myself. 

In conclusion, God's "hatred" towards homosexuality is conditional and not fundamental. God hates some homosexual actions and not homosexuality itself. Hating Made-In-China toys does not mean you hate China. 

 

Warning for you: You might get punished by swearing in an organized debate.

Also also, that proves my point. If God doesn't "hate" homosexual people, he just loves them a bit less, then he doesn't HATE homosexuality. In a way, you disproved yourself. There is no more need to argue. 

Sources:

1) https://time.com/2842044/gay-christians/ Rational reasons why God does not hate homosexuality

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c An example of what kind of homosexuality God hates

3) http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php God is not omnipotent and is established on what people think

4) https://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf Why my opponent's quotes are insufficient to prove her point.