Instigator / Pro
3
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Topic
#4182

Jesus disapproved of homosexuality.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
3
0

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I will show from the Bible to make the topic statement true.

The opposing side will just simply have to debunk with questions. If my answers can't hold up with consistency, then what I've said or will say to make the topic statement will show not to be true .

For example in case this is foreign to you I think it's called the Socratic method or technique.

I believe in brushing teeth before going to bed. You ask me why.

I say because I believe in good oral hygiene.

You ask do I brush my teeth in the morning.

I say no.

You ask do I brush them after each meal and I say no.

You ask why do I brush them at night.

I say for the sake of flushing out the bacteria that's collected throughout the day .

You therefore conclude that my belief is not genuine due to inconsistency alone.

That's all those looking to accept this challenge need to do.

If anything is left still unclear, please request clarity in the comments.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I will begin this foundation at none other than what Jesus said as the topic states.

In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus is speaking with the Pharisees. I'm not going to use the argument of silence saying because Jesus never spoke on homosexuality that it was dis-approved .

I think it is correct to get what we can based on what is in scripture. In some subjects , it just leaves us to extrapolate. Which I don't want to do because that entails assumption, guessing and some sort of reasoning deductively.

I am going to go about this as the scripture expresses line upon line. We gather all what is available from the scripture to conclude and decide the truth on a specific matter. Rightly handling it, rightly dividing it so that the end result is truth is what the Bible encourages.

Jesus's answer to the Pharisees ties to the context of Genesis 1 basically.

In verse 4 " And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female".

Key things to not gloss over here is the male and female that was made.
The male as a whole was made including are the male parts likewise with the female.

So let us follow the trail back to Genesis first chapter beginning at verse :

27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

So as a whole God created the male being. Not some parts but all the parts to him.
The next verse communicates that something is to be. That is with one of those parts created, will help accomplish that thing , hence it was created to do so .

28 " And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth"

To do otherwise with what God said to do with what that was created is defiance.

I'm here to show that defiance/disobedience  is condemned/dis-approved in scripture.

Titus 1:16

"God they profess to know, and in the works they deny [Him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work disapproved."

In keeping with the context with Genesis , we can look at Romans 5.

18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation"

There it goes with the condemnation.

19 " For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners".

There goes and follows from the disobedience.

In this context of Romans 5, it lines up with the context of Genesis 3 and at verse 17.

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

This man's disobedience is disapproved of. That's one line. God says to do something or not do something and if that is disobeyed, denied or opposed, those works are condemned/disapproved.
So that's one line.

Let's see another passage showing condemnation over some other works.

Romans 1, at verse 5.

"By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations".

This is another line. We see "obedience" here. We've learned from the other lines what the opposite is associated with.
Let us drop down to the opposite in this context of chapter 1 starting with a contrast.

17 "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Can't live by something you're not adhering to, following or obedient to.

Next line for the contrast.

18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness".

Those not living by the faith, not obedient, not approved of but condemned.

Just following the context up to this point advancing forward to verse 26.

" For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

Now we can tie this line all the way back to Genesis which ultimately goes right back to Jesus.  Upon reading all this , the reader may think I went off the subject but it all ties in, comes full circle.

Notice the part in the verse about "changing the use". What use? Well what did Genesis one say? Rewind, back up a few paragraphs. I already went over it.

Just for some context concerning defying God, see the prior verses to 26.

"24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

"25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Those that change the truth or lie on God are against and deny God. Remember Titus 1 explained about denying Him in the disobedience.

Instead of those not denying themselves but serving themselves, putting themselves before God is also in disobedience to what He said do. You're not serving the Creator in disobedience to what He said to do. You're serving yourself doing what you say self is to do.
For this occurrence, the scripture says nor are your ways  my ways says the Lord .

I could bring multiple scriptures up on this but let's keep this right on topic.

"27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "

Someone can say by the male leaving the use of the female and vice versa, these individuals are taking the stance in falsity as if male and female was created to be in opposition which would be a lie. In which that would be changing the truth of God. I digress on that.

"28 And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly".

God disapproving of people that disapprove of God so God let them have their disapproved mind. You deny Him, He will deny you.

So to recap and center this . Jesus will not contradict God but is aligned with what was written. Which was established from the beginning regarding the creation of the male and female but was changed to do what they were made for which is disapproved.











Con
#2
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
#3
While the opposing side is figuring out some sort of rebuttal, I'll add this in here.

It is true that Jesus never specifically addressed homosexuality or same sex marriage for that matter. Not that I know of anyway.
I don't think it's written where the Son of God Jesus said homosexuality is a sin.

But I made a statement Jesus disapproved of homosexuality. I can show with scripture to prove it. The Son referred back to the Father to acknowledge what was established. Therefore anything outside of that is disapproved.

What was established counters to the support of homosexuality starting in Matthew 19. Jesus was asked about marriage in which referencing what God established going against the putting away of a wife.

People often mistake Jesus in Matthew justifying divorce. There is none there.

The Pharisees thought this man was sacrilegious. In John 5 , calling him breaking the sabbath, making himself equal with God .
These folks wanted to test him. This man was asked are you the King of the Jews?
You know everything, what is the law?

They didn't get the answer involving Moses . Oh no, wrong, you so called Pharisees,  you act like you don't know what's written from the beginning.

See from the beginning, this is how it was . Think not the Son has come to contradict the Father. The Son has come in the Father's name.

Father God created the heavens and the earth. Formed man from the earth.
The man He created from him , male and female created He them.

As the female was taken out of the male, this was the solidification of no man to separate the two. For this cause, a man shall leave father and mother.

The male created as a whole likewise the female. Given the land to subdue it.
In that, they would live off the land.

They were created to do so from the trees, herbs , plantations therein. By this, living off the land , replenishing the land being fruitful in doing so all in their created beings.

So with all this it leaves no room for exceptions where changes are made to suit the creature. For the things that are of the flesh are of the flesh. What's of the flesh disapproves to what is of God.

Now if the opposing side has a question of what is of God, we can go over what godliness is.

Con
#4
Apologies for the forfeit.

BOP
As mentioned in the description, for Pro to win this debate, then he needs to show scripture where Jesus explicitly or implicitly condemns Christianity and as Con, I must be able to refute it by responding to his questions.

Definitions
Homosexuality - The quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to people of one's own sex or gender.

Rebuttals
1. It would actually seem that in Pro's Round 1 argument that the only verse that comes close to condemning homosexuality is this.:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "
Pro never actually explains the context of this verse, so I googled it. This is what it says.:
Homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was common and commonly accepted. This was true in Plato (Symposium) and Plutarch (Lycurgus). The gods and emperors participated in it. Nero seduced boys. Fourteen out of the first 15 Roman emperors were homosexuals.

Now the problem with this verse is that it doesn't shame the attraction, which is all homosexuality really is. It only implies that intimate relationships between two men are unnatural. I'd argue that's addressing a separate issue from Pro's resolution.  Nero's pedophilia doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in this chapter either.

2. Since Pro says this in Round 2, I'm inclined to treat it as a full concession by Pro.
It is true that Jesus never specifically addressed homosexuality or same sex marriage for that matter. Not that I know of anyway.
I don't think it's written where the Son of God Jesus said homosexuality is a sin.
If this is true, then what are we arguing precisely? Pro's own interpretation of the Bible?

3. But I made a statement Jesus disapproved of homosexuality. I can show with scripture to prove it. The Son referred back to the Father to acknowledge what was established. Therefore anything outside of that is disapproved.
The Bible never mentions anything about eating bananas, so are we to infer that eating bananas is sinful?

Conclusion
Pro hasn't proven anything here really.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"As mentioned in the description, for Pro to win this debate, then he needs to show scripture where Jesus explicitly or implicitly condemns Christianity"

Are you sure you got the right debate comrade?

Say what now?

"Pro never actually explains the context of this verse, so I googled it. "

The book says study to show yourself approved rightly dividing the word of truth. This is the best you got by googling somebody's interpretation which could be incorrect. How do you know what you found is correct when you didn't study these passages yourself?

"Romans 1:27 | Bible Exposition Commentary (versebyversecommentary.com)

Now the problem with this verse is that it doesn't shame the attraction, which is all homosexuality really is. It only implies that intimate relationships between two men are unnatural. I'd argue that's addressing a separate issue from Pro's resolution. "

We can't trust what you say to be correct because you don't even know yourself. You're just regurgitating from somewhere else manipulated, articulated like a puppet.

Also the scripture doesn't just say natural but "natural use" which I've pointed out. The use was created by the Creator. Which by exchanging it, the creature is being served, worshipped more so than the Creator.
See if you're going to debate this, you actually have to take what I say and refute it. Anybody can come along and deflect adding their dogma . In this case, your's mixed with somebody else's. Now this is the actual problem not actually being familiar with scripture and trying to take shortcuts like a crash course leaning on what somebody else thinks of whom you don't know is correct and credibility is questioned. Don't use anybody else's interpretation as it causes you to error in lining this up . What you said didn't line up with the scripture .

" Nero's pedophilia doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in this chapter either."

Are you in the right debate comrade?

"If this is true, then what are we arguing precisely?
Pro's own interpretation of the Bible?"

Just be patient and read on.

"The Bible never mentions anything about eating bananas, so are we to infer that eating bananas is sinful?"

This question right here tells you don't know how or anything about rightly dividing scripture. You got to rightly divide the book.

You don't infer anything. You don't take any private interpretation. You take the words of scripture as is less you be in violation of Proverbs 30 to not add to the words.

Assumptions and inferences are adding to the scriptures.

The scriptures says nothing about drug dealing poisonous cancerous fatalistic narcotics on 125th in Harlem either.

But when the scripture is rightly divided, it lines up with killing, murder which is not biblically permitted.

It's the same with this topic. I never said the scripture said in specific words"Jesus disapproved of homosexuality ". Just like it doesn't state in specific direct terms of Jesus being opposed to drug dealing in New York.
That's Jesus the Son. Some folks maybe thinking when I say Jesus I mean God. This is why I provided a specific context in Matthew of what he specifically said and didn't say my fellow readers.

Jesus didn't speak directly at certain things .
See the scriptures give the principle foundations. For a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation, the precepts. There's nothing new under the sun. The scripture does not speak on every single thing there is but there's nothing new.  So everything is covered directly or indirectly.

If there was scripture that stated in specific words, this wouldn't be a debate. The topic is way more complex than that.

"Pro hasn't proven anything here really.''

I understand you have to say that because you're on the opposing side. Even when it's a fact the sky is blue , you'd say that .

I'm going to go over this again. Jesus referred to God that created male and female.
Is that right? Are you with me so far?
Hopefully.

The Father and Son are one. They're not in disagreement or contradiction so it is very consistent that in everything Jesus the Son points back to God his Father.

So whatever God says , the Son echoes. Are you with me so far?

To those thinking I have to go to Leviticus, I don't. I'm going right back to the beginning.

God created the male, the whole male to do what he does. To eat, sleep, be fruitful.

Just say so where you're getting lost and I'll come find you.

To not be fruitful, to not be fruitful, to not be fruitful is disobedience and disobedience is disapproved.

Now how does homosexuality fall under not being fruitful?

It's leaving the use , the use that was created to be fruitful. Going against what God said to do which is what serving the creature is opposed to serving the Creator .

We're able to line all this up starting from what Jesus said in Matthew 19.

You have to READ ALL of what I'm saying in order to honestly say nothing was proven and or try to refute ALL of it.

But I think you're just cherry picking looking for specific phrases from Jesus.  But the topic statement isn't Jesus said this or that .

It's that he disapproved of homosexuality. So then you read about how that statement is true .






Con
#6
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
#7
My position stands unrefuted having no response from the opposing side.


27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth".

Jesus the SON said in Matthew 19 "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female".

The SON references his Father's creation. Not just of marriage as a result but the beginning of the male and female.
See the male and female was created and created with uses.

Then these creatures were told to be fruitful . Being fruitful has to do with producing something like the fruit that a branch bears. Produce it and multiply it.
This is accomplished with the created use of the male and female creatures.

To not do with that use as told is ungodly because it's doing that which is not of God. Which would make it unrighteous which is also not of God. If it's not of God, it's not serving God. This is all outlined in Romans 1.

What is defied, denied and or what is disobedience is condemned or dis-approved by God. As the scripture says the Father and Son are one. So what the Father says, what the Father does , the Son does likewise.





Con
#8
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
#9
This is what you call having them on the ropes.

Well I have to assume due to a lack of rebuttals, that my position is correct that once read and understood, Jesus disapproved of homosexuality and there's many things that weren't explicitly stated word for word.

We know the scripture doesn't detail every thing imaginable you can picture but because there's nothing new under the sun, everything is covered in some extent.

Ecclesiastes 1:
"  3 What do people gain from all their labors
    at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
    but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
    and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
    and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
    ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
    yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
    there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
    more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
    nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
    “Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
    it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
    and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
    by those who follow them."

Really a beautiful passage dealing with the usual of things of the world. Nothing new has come along not known by God nor conceived by man's heart. In Adam all have fallen, through that one nature of disobedience as written in Romans 5.

Any disobedience is nothing new. It's been in place since the garden. What is disobedience to God?

It is not doing what God say do. Man disobeyed to not eating of the tree. Man left the use of the woman. How is this disobedience?

One , Romans 1 classifies such under unrighteousness, ungodliness which is not righteousness that has been revealed from faith to faith that others are OBEDIENT to.

Two , it's highlighted of the use of the man and woman being exchanged or leaving of such.  Who's to say what natural use has been given up according to who?
None other than the One Who created it. The One Who is not served, Who is disapproved of in the minds of those serving themselves denying Him via disobedience.

All summed up line upon line starting with the Son Jesus when he said "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female".

He is that foundation and cornerstone.



Con
#10
Forfeited