Instigator / Con
28
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#3179

(Remake) THBT The Bible Condemns Homosexuality

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
0
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

Nyxified
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
25,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1486
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Remake of ( https://www.debateart.com/debates/3160-thbt-the-bible-condemns-homosexuality ) this debate because my opponent created an account on the day of accepting, forfeit the first round, has not been active on the forum nor accepted my friend request. This makes me fairly certain they will not be coming back any time soon.

The Bible: A book composed of only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament

Homosexuality: In this context can refer to a person who is attracted to the same gender that they are, romantic/sexual relationships between homosexuals of the same gender, romantic/sexual acts between two homosexuals of the same gender, etc...

Condemned: Stated or implied to be a sin, and/or weakening your relationship with the Christian deity, and/or implying future punishment, and/or stated or implied to be immoral/very bad.

Any argument made with regards to the condemnation of homosexuality can not apply to heterosexuality as well (i.e. a condemnation of all human sexuality or of actions not exclusive to homosexuality are not applicable).

Pro must prove the bible likely/on balance condemns homosexuality whereas con only needs to prove it is unlikely the bible condemns homosexuality and/or that, on balance, there is no good reason to believe it does. Con doesn't have to prove the counterfactual (i.e. The bible supports homosexuality/doesn't condemn it). The reasoning for this is fairly self-evident, as things are only considered sins in Christianity if there is good reason to believe it is. If there is no good reason to believe that it is, defending it or finding a biblical basis for it is not necessary for it to not be considered a sin. Things that aren't sins don't need to 'prove' that they aren't sins and we can reasonably conclude it is not condemned.

Please comment for questions or requests for changes. This is (or it was when I first made it lmao) the first debate I am creating, so constructive feedback is welcomed as well.

As I am con, I forfeit the first argument, pro forfeits the last argument.

was hoping to see a cool debate. rip

-->
@drlebronski

The link you sent was to Leviticus 20. While this response I gave to TheUnderdog about Leviticus 18:22 is probably still applicable, I'm not sure. I'll paste it here anyways.

Leviticus 18:22 is possibly the most cited bible verse that is supposedly against homosexuality, second only to perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah, and while it has the problem of being taken out of context as well, it has a problem of dishonest translation much more so. Hebrew is a VERY complex language relative to English, and it's one that we have only very recently, if we have at all, begun to fully understand. Let's go through each problem with the homophobic interpretation

Problem #1: The phrase that is translated to 'as one lies with' is seen in 5 other verses, and 4 of those times it refers to a place and literally in relation to lying there. A woman's bed was considered sacred in the time Leviticus was written as far as I know.

Problem #2: English translators have taken significant liberties in translating the verse so that it sounds appropriate for an English audience, which then worsens efforts at interpretation significantly. The verse, translated directly, would be translated by some to say "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Obviously that doesn't make any sense to English speakers, but we can only understand what it means if we look at what it actually is, not what would be most convenient to read.

Problem #3: The word 'lyings' only appears twice in the bible, once in Leviticus 18:22 and second in Genesis 49:4. What does Genesis 49:4 condemn? Incest.

Problem #4: Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest, basically going down the list of "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your sister. etc..." When combined with the understanding that 'lyings' in Genesis 49:4 refers to incest, homosexuality is only one of the many possible interpretations one could have of this story, which I believe that, when combined with the stories of David and Jonathan and the other facts I mentioned, is the least likely of them all.

You can find all this info here: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/#_ednref8 . I would've loved to use more direct citations, but unfortunately the most

-->
@Nyxified

i did find this bible quote "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "`http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/LEV+20.html#:~:text=%22%60If%20a%20man%20lies%20with,wickedness%20will%20be%20among%20you. though it does say "as one lies with a woman" so that might mean if a heterosexual man sleeps with a man it is sinful. (or a three some?)

lol do you think im doing it?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

???

-->
@drlebronski

I think you know...

who are these random accounts that just accept one debate then leave the site?

-->
@fauxlaw

In all of my real life debating experience, pro is always the side that goes first. Per my debate coaches teaching, resolutions that are negative generally should be reworded to become positive. Moreover, con's position, from my point of view (not to say this is factual or unworkable), is very rebuttal focused and has little constructive arguments that can be made. If I could just set con to start second, I would.

I see no need to refer to me as a coward, what you're describing is far from a trend in my debates. However, you do bring up an important idea. The person instigating a debate often times should be the one who presents their arguments first. It would be weird to make a claim and insist that anyone who disagrees make their claims first. It's something I'll try to take to heart in the future.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I apologize if I failed to address this in the previous debate. I just created a debate that related to my beliefs. I'd welcome a more specific definition if you have one better than what I've proposed!

If the original Hebrew in the bible says something different from the English translation, the Hebrew takes precedence.

-->
@Nyxified

If you only want a 3-round debate, call it a 3-round debate. What's the sense of trading first-and-last round waivers [what you call "forfeit]? This even contradicts what is said in Help Center on debates: that as for arguments [including rebuttal, defense] "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." A four-round debate has argument in all four rounds by each opponent. To me, the initiator who waives a first round is a coward, wanting see the opponent's hand before revealing their own. Seems to me, you initiate a debate, you have the courage to present your argument first, whether you are Pro or Con.

-->
@Nyxified

The definition for "bible" is so vague that if you try, there is basically no way you can lose.

Again, do we count the original copies or do new translations count?

-->
@TheUnderdog

Drlebronski is correct. The previous debate, for the reasons in the description, is highly likely to be a FF, so I've remade it.

I'm also con in this debate, but if you mean to say that you do believe the bible condemns homosexuality, then by all means, I'd be happy to debate this with you if you become more motivated in the future!

-->
@TheUnderdog

The other debate shes doing is looking like an FF rn

-->
@Nyxified

You already have a debate like this going. Do you intend to duplicate? I disagree, but I don’t have the motivation to debate.