Does The Bible Tell Christians To Be Homophobic?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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.
As we can see here, it is not our place to judge others, because we are guilty of the same things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :DYou gave me a nice response.
I think you meant to say homophobic, not homophile. And, yes, I agree with that point!
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."
All sin sends one to hell, as I showed in Romans 6:23, not just homosexuality.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
John 15:12: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
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
In his opening round pro states the core portions of the bible that outlaw homosexuality - that they should be killed.
Cons case here is that the Bible teaches that sinners should not be reviled themselves, that while it maybe a sin, “Everyone” is a sinner and should not be judged. My main issue with cons case is that con claims the bible does not tell us to treat homosexuals differently.
Pro pointed out the bible commands that homosexuals be out to death. This seems a pretty clear cut “treating people differently”
Cons case here separates the bibles treatment of the sin from the sinner.
Pros response however, doesn’t do that: and argues that the sin should be shunned and people shouldn’t commit the sin, primarily: this misses the point of cons main premise, and con points this out in his next round. This goes back and forth on this with pro not addressing the key point that while the sin is bad, the sinner shouldn’t be reviled.
That is until the final round and a half where pro posts a quote from the comments without an associated argument talking about how the bible commands that homosexuals be murdered.
Con argues that everyone deserves death for their sins, and should not be judged. Reiterating his opening round. Pro - in his final round - points out that God commands homosexuals he murdered.
The difficulty for me here, is the murder part. Con did well to show the broad teaching of the bible doesn’t support the resolution - but this one point seems relatively clear, however pro doesn’t point it out until the last minute with no context.
Reading the resolution, while I think I could easily have gone with pros contention had it been more thrashed out and more topical to the resolution: cons case and examples did a better job of showing the bible commands people not to judge, that it’s no different from any other sin, and that all sinners deserve death. However, this was very close - and I could potentially have gone the other way there if pro had done more with the murder aspect
Arguments to con
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.
Just wanted to tell you that I've accepted your challenge
I wish you goodluck sir :D
Ah, I see. I don't think that's a typical Christian, I just think that's the type of Christian that is most frequently portrayed in the media. I definitely hate that stereotype and think that we have to kind of break out of it
Typical Christian is one who believes what they were told growing up in a strict religious environment and is afraid to have an open mind and question the "Pillars of the Faith"
Okay thanks! Will do!
What would you define a typical Christian as?
Well let me know if you find anything! You can look at my profile to see some of my religious debates and see if you find anything interesting
I'm not your typical "Christian," so I'm hoping to challenge some of the status quo arguments.
Not sure. I'm a newbie so I've just been browsing the debate topics. I'm mainly interested in religious, theological, political, and sports topics.
is there*
Welp, I should there anything else that you would want to debate?
Okay it sounds like it would not work for me then. The "Or" would have to be either:or. I can debate against dislike but not against prejudice, so I would need that option to remove prejudice and just focus on dislike.
Too bad I think I would have enjoyed the debate :-)
Well I’m not sure that I could argue against that if I changed it, and the or is connecting
Friend, If you change two words in your definition of homophobic, I would take up the challenge. This would be my first debate on DebateArt, so I may make some mistakes.
Your definition of homophobic: "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
The changes I would make to the definition in order to accept the challenge; "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality.
Also I would like clarification of the word "or" in the definition. Does it mean "either or" or used to connect alternative terms for the same thing ( source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/or )
Let me know what you think.
Ok lol
I hope you get a challenger. I'll have my popcorn ready, lol!
Alrighty
Repentance is changing your ways. Conversion therapy is designed to help with that. Talking to a therapist can also be conversion therapy. I don't think I have the time to accept the debate. Maybe this summer?
Why don't you accept the debate lol
Dude, that's not what repentance is...repenting is essentially an apology, conversion therapy is basically torture, they're not synonymous
Conversion therapy is repentance because the gay person is not being gay anymore.
Our world is just sad sometimes
People have a bad habit of interpreting the bible to say whatever they want. This is why hate groups such as Westboro Baptist Church can read the same bible as U2, but decide on polar opposite morals are contained within. Some even interpret the bible as predicting the messiah Donald Trump.
For one, the debate isn’t over whether the Bible supports conversion therapy or not, and also, conversion therapy isn’t repentance dude
The Bible encourages repentance for those who sin. In other words, it supports conversion therapy.
The problem with the pro-LGBTMICKEYMOUSE movement is that they equate "calling an action wrong" with "hating the person committing the action."
Same here
As a Christian, I can tell you there is nowhere in the Bible that tells believers to hate homosexuals. On the contrary, we are to love all humanity, just as God loves all humanity and sent His Son to die for said humanity. I personally do not see how you can lose this debate.
The Bible says that sinners in general won’t go to heaven, which is literally everybody...
The Bible says that gays won't go to heaven. If I were religious, I would want conversion therapy.
Amen to that
I agree though The Bible certainly doesn't allow homosexuality it teaches to love all and not to judge