This guy sounds a little too intelligent for someone wearing this mask
I mean he called the LGBT movement a Marxist assault on the white family and said lesbians are all faking it for attentionSo I guess it depends on how you define "intelligent"
Snark isn't an argument
The debate is over, I am not making an argument.
But you didn't make an argument during the debate lmao
that's interesting how you kept posting your own sources but then the "debate was over" the moment you were asked to refute one of my points. very mysterious!
@deusvult, I'll engage you on your proposed topic, 'Democrats keep the black community shattered on purpose.'
@chasuk I look forward to it!
@chasuk I don't think they published my intro and debate topics yet--where are you seeing it by the way?
@deusvult, it was promoted on the Facebook QallOut group.
@chasuk Gotcha--I will set it up next weekend and then we can schedule it.
@deusvult @chasuk You can directly invite each other by clicking at the camera icons next to your opponent's name or from his profile. Don't forget to share the link and the date/ time of your debate so that we can tune in!
@gigi , Thanks!
@deusvult I have never heard someone say the things you say. You are a very different kind of person. I'm not saying you're wrong for your thoughts or write. I'm just saying I love watching your debates, lol.
@max He really said, "Lesbians are all faking it for attention". OMG, I can's stop laughing !!!!!
he didn't say they are dirty sinners, did he?
I don't believe I did, and I hold no ill will towards homosexuals at all. I wish they would get healthy and be happy
No need to 'get' healthy and happy, already there. Thanks so much for your concern.
That's a great question
@deusvult but the lifestyle that you are describing are exactly the same for heterosexuals too!
in terms of overall promiscuity it's not even close. male homosexuals have partner counts off the charts
@deusvult , I'm gay...please get me some of the chart partner counts please. Also, I would agree that Christianity sees it as a sin, but I would agree that it doesn't matter. As you've I'm sure masturbated several times in your life, no? (which is also a sin by scripture) Sin is law of man, not law of god (law of god is the 10 commandments). Man created bible, bible created sin (the notion). It doesn't matter if homosexuality is a sin, because Jesus forgives it. He is the center point of Christianity. Your opponent may have won if he tried to steer the argument in this direction, but instead quoted the text of a different religion in his opening statement...
//instead quoted the text of a different religion in his opening statement...//I actually quoted from the Christian Bible
@deusvult maybe I should introduce you to some of my straight acquaintances.. off the charts! Based on my personal experience, this type of lifestyle is more of a choice regardless of your sexual orientation.
studies disagree with your anecdotes. Why is that the ONLY "evidence" women on this page present? "well that's not true for ME." "well I know people who aren't like that"Do you not even get how science works or why it's important?
Can you pls post credible and recent sources of these studies? The problem usually with these is that I can come up with equal amount contradicting yours... So yes, I do find personal experience very valuable especially considering the amount of bs that we are reading online. And my comment is for both straight men and women.. And regarding science, I have a few higher education degrees, lived and traveled all around the world so I guess I know a thing or two..:-) But happy to hear your thoughts and what exactly you mean with your questions. Even Pope recently pledged for pastors and catholics to be more accepting of the LGBTQ community.. the world is not black and white! http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/
And if you are asking me, sick and disturbed are the ~6%-10% of catholic priests who engage in sexual activities with young boys rather than the adults who make conscious decisions about their life and their happiness..
I'm no fan of Catholicism but the number of children they abuse is practically negligible compares to what schoolteachers do (usually female as well). Obviously all child abuse is wrong regardless of who's doing it, but once again "other people do bad stuff too" is NOT an argument. neither is "i've traveled and lot and therefore I know science," you need to go back and study the difference between science and personal experience if you really think that holds any water. having degrees is meaningless if you can't tell the differencedeus vult
also the Pope is a cuck and I've already posted links and sources all over this page go find them and read them
I think you're taking my comments out of context..the example of homosexuality within the catholic community was just to show you what sick means in my opinion and yours obviously. Never said that i know science because i travelled. I know science because I studied it..as mentioned I have degrees from top universities globally. And observation of the environment around you is actually the basis of scientific conclusions (remember Newton and the apple tree?). The point about having travelled around the world was meant to show you that I have been exposed to a number of different cultures/ perspectives etc so I know that things are not black or white and what you are expressing is your opinion which happens to differ from a large number of people so I think it's worth at least re-considering your views and listening to other perspectives..And just a question, how exactly science proves that homosexuality is a sin?
>studied science>thinks anecdotes are evidencechoose
@servandorosario, man did not create the bible. It is the inspired word of God to man. However, you are correct in your statement that homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin.
@gigi Catholic Priests are holding on to traditions that were done away in the New Testament. Catholocism is wrong for so many reasons yet some view it as "God's Church. Catholics live the Old Testament laws (try to anyway) and pretty much skim over the new testament. It's the reason why they have so many issues.
So far, I don't see anything that relates specifically to Christianity.
No but this is definitely interesting..
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
From my article://The Meaning Of ArsenokoitēsThis is perhaps the greatest mystery in this whole discussion. There is a word, Arsenokoites, which appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. While it has traditionally been translated a variety of ways, we don’t actually know what it means. Given the etymology, it probably refers to some kind of homosexuality, but it probably does not refer to homosexuality in general. If it did then 1 Corinthians 6:9 would be redundant, because just prior to this word it uses another Greek word which commonly refers to male homosexual prostitutes. Since nothing else in this verse is repeated, and homosexuality in general is not a common topic in the Bible, it seems unlikely that the verse would say “and male gay prostitutes, and homosexuals in general.” It is more likely that it refers to some other particular type of homosexual behavior. Given the era it seems inconceivable that it could be talking about loving homosexual marriages, so these verses can probably be dismissed from discussions pertaining to marriage equality.But we cannot know for sure, which is why a lot of modern translations use something vague and confusing like “abusers of themselves with mankind.”//More here!http://americablog.com/2015/04/god-fine-marriage-equality.html
Didnt realize youd used Romans 1 also, here's more from that same article://The final passages used to condemn homosexuality come in Romans 1: 26-27: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.The modern mind reads these verses and makes a lot of assumptions. But what does this text actually say?It says the women exchange natural relations for unnatural ones, then describes men having sex with men. But it doesn’t actually describe the unnatural relations women were having — the common assumption is that it is describing female homosexuality, and if it does it is the only text in the Bible that does so. As it turns out, the Church Fathers tended to interpret this as referring to extramarital affairs. Anastasios and Augustine both explicitly reject that it refers to lesbian sex, and the earliest person on record using this to condemn lesbianism was John Chrysostom in the 5th century AD.Therefore, there are no clear, explicit references to lesbianism anywhere in the Bible.But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that these verses include both male and female homosexuals.This passage is clearly not about a group of monogamous, married homosexual couples. It is about people who exchanged their marital relationships for homosexual extramarital affairs. Condemnation of people who commit a variety of sins, among them adultery with homosexuals, is not the same as a condemnation of homosexuality itself.Finally, and perhaps more importantly the passage is itself a setup for Romans 2. The condemnations against “dishonorable passions” are levied for the sake of getting the crowd hearing the letter riled up, while Romans 2 admonishes them for judging their fellow humans.//More here:http://americablog.com/2015/04/god-fine-marriage-equality.html
The Greek translations are already too far from the source for my liking, I'm going to look it up in my Aramaic Bible to get to the bottom of whether this is truly a mistranslation or not.
yeah you're just blatantly wrong, friend. the Aramaic version is even more clear than the Greek one. when men do with men what men should do with women, the punishment is misery and internal disharmony. that's what the punishment of sin looks like in practical terms and real life.is it just a coincidence that so many people doing exactly what the Bible says not to do are suffering from exactly the internal pain and chaos that the Bible says will result from those actions?
you can't use yourself as a source you cuck.
Lol what are you talking about? The Greek I was using was from the New Testament. The New Testament was WRITTEN IN GREEK. By referencing Aramaic you are using a translation.For the Old Testament verses I used Hebrew and (at the time considered authoritative) Aramaic translations from the era.Are you this woefully ignorant about the Bible, really? Next time I hope I get an opponent who knows what he's talking about lol
My article cites sources
My article cites some of the most respected scholars in the world + ancient well-respected thinkers fluent in the languages we are discussing
I'll cite this source that I MADE that cites sources that you should believe. You're either shamelessly trying to self promote, or you're just a loser.
@Deusvult, the New Testament was written in Greek. Your Aramaic Bible is therefore necessarily a translation from Greek.
A cuck? Do you have anything valuable to contribute to this conversation, mate?
I am sharing my extensive notes and research and sources on this subject. I am not sure why that is a bad thing, I kind of feel like youre just here to troll
your entire argument hinges on a vague and unconvincing interpretation of one particular word mine hinges on being obviously right and the people who are doing what is obviously a sin tend to be miserable and full of painthe Bible says "do this and your life will be bad." they're doing it. their lives are bad. coincidence?
DEUSVULT fair questoins and points but share source
on which point?
What about the fact the majority need toys to be inserted to get off?
I'm pretty sure you uneducated on physiology. Gay men and straight men have the same physiology.
Post the facts afterwards!
my links are all over this page, everything I said is right
get him @max
When god said that a woman only equal to man in spirit to uphold the law.
Thank you for this
citing yourself isn't really an argument
I think you're absolutely wrong, Max, but I'm excited to read your article.
And I am excited to hear your feedback!
Because god said women are equal to man in spirit makes the law equal to them as is the same in men. So when he said man is not to lie with a man as he would with a woman it is equal in visa versa.
@dwrightmartin5 " When you say "Because god said women are equal to man in spirit", I reply you with this http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.htm
Leave a video comment @max
Thank you both for this! It was certainly informative
you're welcome, thanks for the opportunity!
He sure does use the word "facts" a lot for a guy with no supporting evidence :P For actual facts, my article below outlines this topic excellently with a variety of reputable sources
I have been posting links to support everything I said during the debate; your choosing not to read them doesn't mean they aren't there.
BRO YOU CAN'T USE YOURSELF AS A SOURCE YOU'RE STUPID
Pretty sure it's a sin in Christianity.
Here's that article which I wroteamericablog.com/2015/04/god-fine-marriage-equality.html
1) Old languages tend to be very limited when trying to make a very unique proposition. Trying to redefine translations doesn't serve any purpose, no one would agree there are such things as perfect translations.2) The point of condemning homosexuality and every other type of sexuality and sexual promiscuity is to keep people in a 'healthy' lifestyle. Men and women are meant to go together, that's a fact. The Bible insists that there is one ideal way to go about this. That's the point of the philosophy of all Christianity.From what I read, most of your arguments are trying to redefine contemporary translations. Which is fine, but if you tied Christian philosophy to other philosophy or tried to make an understanding of the moral principles of Christianity, you'd probably find they intended to describe homosexuality as a sin.
of course it is, it's a sin in every religion
I cited ancient Rabbinic sources agreeing with my definitions at every turn so Im not sure what you think Im "redefining". Do you know more about ancient Hebrew than the Targums?
no but I clearly know more about how to dress properly than you do :^)
and by the way here are some sources for my comments on "down low brothers"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ernest-owens/gay-black-men-its-time-to_b_6370398.htmlhttps://dlconfessionssequel.com/http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TIMC7TEI2LVMSOFHVIt is real and it is dangerous
I will let your sources speak for themselves. The only one half reputable disagrees with your worldview.
Still waiting on the lesbians not existing source
75-90% of "lesbians" also have had sex with men. look at the links I posted. everything I said is accurate and the power of kek prevails
Your claim was that they are having straight sex on the side and were faking it for attention. That most lesbians HAVE HAD sex with men doesnt support that argument. Here's a link to help you outhttp://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html
also, "The only one half reputable disagrees with your worldview."is not actually a sentence. it contains letters, and words, but they don't mean anything in that particular order.
Apparently I'm a figment of my own imagination... and I have sex with men (that's repulsive, how do I do that and not even realize it?).
this is why women get paid less. not because of "muh patriarchy" but because apparently you all missed the whole scientific method lesson in high school where they explain that your own personal solipsistic experience makes no difference when it comes to the discernment of what is true and what is not according to said method
and my comment about lesbianism being a phase is constantly discussed by women going through it and within that community https://www.bustle.com/articles/49860-am-i-a-lesbian-or-is-it-just-a-phase-how-to-start-figuring-out-the
But you know that SOME women having difficulty identifying their sexuality doesnt support your assertion that lesbians dont exist, theyre faking it for attention, and theyre getting straight sex on the side, right? Can you not read sources is that the issue?IF THEY WERE JUST DOING IT FOR ATTENTION THEY WOULDNT NEED ARTICLES LIKE THIS
I was mostly saying that as a joke but then I decided to run with it once I saw how triggered you got. i do think a vast number will return to being straight but not "all." Still very rarely leads to any kind of long term happiness though
also yeah most "lesbians" are sleeping with men
literally everything I said is right http://marriagepolicy.org/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuity-breeding-a-national-health-problem/From that last one:"Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men. Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. Only 10% of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.The incidence of HIV in men who have sex with men is 44 times that of heterosexual men, and 40 times greater than womenHomosexual men are 46 times more likely than heterosexual men to contract syphilis.HIV is the #10 cause of death for black males and #24 for white males (Table D).While there are far fewer lesbians than gays, lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have had over 50 sex partners than heterosexual women.63 percent of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men (cite).The majority of lesbians commonly have sex with men."
You technically didn't even say all, you said most, and Max lost his shit.
of course, he can't refute anything I say so he throws conniption fits and calls me racist instead
Ugh, hide behind a mask and make unfounded claims about promiscuity and disease.
Pretty sick and cowardly. No substantiation of any kind, just throwing out homophobic, racist, and sexist lies because he could.
except that I posted sources about the "down low brother" epidemic that is spreading disease. i am the one trying to help; you help nobody by pretending problems aren't actually problems
also those aren't arguments
Typical deflection. Can't argue the points being made so you attack appearance. Laughable.
chaussette I wear this because secretly I look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame stop body-shaming me pls
You're ashamed of your own beliefs, that's just sad.
you're making a logical fallacy there which I call "non argumentum"akanot an argument
aaaand once again I was right. i keep posting sources to everything I was talking about, from the down low brother epidemic to lesbianism being mostly a phase to gay promiscuity. here are some links on the last one, the others are already on the page http://www.gayexplained.com/promiscuous/http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/http://marriagepolicy.org/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuity-breeding-a-national-health-problem/From that last one:"Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men. Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. Only 10% of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.The incidence of HIV in men who have sex with men is 44 times that of heterosexual men, and 40 times greater than womenHomosexual men are 46 times more likely than heterosexual men to contract syphilis.HIV is the #10 cause of death for black males and #24 for white males (Table D).While there are far fewer lesbians than gays, lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have had over 50 sex partners than heterosexual women.63 percent of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men (cite).The majority of lesbians commonly have sex with men."
I wonder why no one has responded to this comment.
because all they have is labels and snarkmfw not an argument
A phase? Longest phase ever... over forty years.
anecdote < actual study
This felt to me less a debate than Max presenting reasoned argument and evidence and Deusvult presenting opinion.
except that I've posted links with evidence for every assertion I made. you can choose to read them, or not, but burying your head in the sand and pretending they aren't there doesn't mean I'm wrong
Were these links posted prior to the debate, or during the course of it? I was critiquing the debate, not your retroactive linking skills.The (ostensible?) subject of this debate was not the relative promiscuity rates between hetero and homosexuals, nor the consequences of promiscuity. It wasn't even about lesbianism being mostly a phase. The subject — whether homosexuality is a sin in Christianity — was addressed head-on by Max, and largely sidestepped by you.
That's funny, considering Max is citing himself as a source and Deusvult is actually citing sources for his claims. But I get why you're ignoring his posts, the SJW struggles to acknowledge opposing opinions so they ignore anything that disagrees with their world view.
except that it wasn't and sin is specifically defined by the negative consequences it brings on the person doing itI posted all sources after the debate, not that you're going to read them
Good point, Chas
Citing himself as a source? He was referencing something that he had written earlier, in which he was citing the New Testament and the Old Testament.I promise, I'm not a SJW, nor even close to one.
Also, for the record, James 4 defines sin as "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them." and Luke 13 responds to people who use disaster and calamity to determine who is a sinner:// Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”//
Let me know if you need theology tutoring before you debate again
Again, I was judging you for the evidence you provided DURING THE DEBATE, not after it.Further, I'm not disputing your evidence, only its relevance to the proposition.
And yeah this nonsense that Im citing myself as a source indicates that you didnt read it, I drop an absurd number of reputable citations in that article.
sounds good fam, let me know if you need an adult to help you dress before yours
I find it funny that this guy is spending half of his time talking about how he totally trold me lol topkek and the other half getting mad and posting links to blogs and (judging by the influx of him-votes and ignorant comments) spamming this on his white supremacy forums.For a 1337 trolol he sure is getting worked up about getting smashed in a debate
I'm winning according to the polls on YOUR website. let me guess...Russian Hackers did that?
I posted this comment when I had 2/3rds of the vote. Then there was a sudden surge of voters and commenters in your favor which did not correlate in a surge of video views which tipped you over the edge by a few percent. Now, left alone and with no marketing from me, my lead has built back up again. But I do find it funny that you circulated this among your white supremacy boards so you could build up just enough of a lead to post that remark, but with the abysmal performance you put forward you will need to dedicate much more time to garnering voters if you want to maintain that "lead".
lmao @ "white supremacy boards"how can you even call yourself a logical debater with these gigantic leaps of the imagination and petty attempts at shaming tactics?btw I'm born and raised Jewish so I don't think those boards would accept me. now that I think of it your personal attacks are coming off a bit anti-Semitic, please try to tone down the racism
I thought you were saving this debate for me Max? :) Anyways it's good to know your thoughts on the subject, however I still heartily disagree with you and wish I could have tackled you first. Blessings.
I would love to have an educated debate with someone like you on this subject sometime :D
why are you so scared to discuss the "down low brother" epidemic I mentioned and posted evidence for? Is such a courageous debater as yourself afraid of uncomfortable truths?
The old testament is irrelevant to Christianity, why are you even mentioning it? It's a sin, but so is "masturbating" and "divorce", you should have focused on it not mattering and Jesus forgiving such instead of debating that it wasn't a "sin". Man created the bible, sin is man's law...not God's law.
@deusvult Clarify, 10 Commandments is the Divine Law, not the human narrated bible.
That was great @chasuk
Thank you, @jameson14!:-)
@chasuk the one point I will grant you from the video is that my opponent and I did not agree on a definition ahead of time; however, I defined it by both "things God said not to do" and the consequences of doing so anyway, both of which are supported Biblically, so my opponent's complete failure to address the fact that living sinfully results in disease and mental illness is his problem and not mine. that said, I will have links and stats ready before my next debate. this was my first one ever, I suppose I'm lucky to have gotten a radical SJW for an opponent who just shouted buzzwords about racism and homophobia rather than addressing my points on their own merit.
@deusvult, comments like this one don't serve you well in a debate community. Don't sabotage the esteem you earned by doing well in your first debate – because you _did_ do well.QallOut is a unique debate site. There has never been a site quite like it, in fact. Its founders care about debate as something urgent and vital, and not just as a showcase for rhetoric. I think they regard debate exactly as I do, which is as the most powerful tool for learning in humankind's possession.The type of debate that QallOut is encouraging — even if not explicitly — is known as the dialectical method, "a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments." [Definition provided by Wikipedia.] @Yaz, if I'm wrong about this, please correct me. When interlocutors are debating for the purpose of establishing truth through reasoned arguments, it is _required_ that both parties agree on the essential definitions before the argument can proceed. This isn't something that you or Max undertook to do. Remember, Max is not obligated to accept your definition, nor are you obligated to accept his. You must arrive at a working definition together, or you really aren't arguing at all, but engaging in a sort of masturbatory Show'N Tell.Anyway, thanks for responding, and good luck in all of your future debates.
Your opening point was entirely about the Torah, a text of a DIFFERENT religion of the subject matter. That's when you lost, at the start, arguing about the text if a religion irrelevant to the debate.
The Torah is the first five books of the Christian Bible. Why is so much of this conversation basic lessons in religion
The Tanakh is the Jewish holy text. The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh. The Tanakh is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
on this we agree
max and I, I mean. it's shocking to me how few Christians apparently understand the context of their own religion or ever bother reading the Old Testament their entire faith is based on
Christians and Catholics read 'The New Testament" not the old...any argument based off the Old is irrelevant. Yes, it's all related. But you are talking about a vast majority of Christians that disregard the "Old Testament" so why do you think that you saying it applies to the masses of Christians is valid...when the masses of Christians don't refer to the "Old Testament"? Common practice is more valid than textual associations.
Hmm? What 'different religion' would that be?This will certainly be news to Jewish scholars.
The vast amounts of Christians (most certainly in America) see the New Testament as their Bible, not the Old Testament. This is something that has to be taken into account.
Ive worked in Christian ministry for nearly a decade and grew up in the Church and went to a Christian University and what you are saying is just false
In America many Christians are ignorant about the OT, but if you walked up to any of them on the street and asked if Genesis was in the Bible theyd say yes. Especially Young Earth Creationists, who are still a powerful political force in this nation.
If you poll Christians about which is their bible, 9/10 will say the new testament. Christians see the New Testament as their bible...not the Old...This isn't opinion. Whether the fact is there or not, this is the common perception, What have you to say about the direction of your argument, and how it could have been modified for a winning one? (Sin doesn't matter, as it is human law not divine law...as homosexuality wasn't mentioned in 10 commandments, which ironically is an "Old Testament" argument, as they are first mentioned there...but the Hebrew and Christian 10 commandments DO have differences)
Christians who "disregard the Old Testament" are ignorant of their own religion and have no idea what they're practicing, why it matters, or where it comes from. Sheer stupidity.
I agree. The Old Testament is the is the Christian Translation of Hebrew matters, not Christian matters itself. Yes we learn about Moses, yes we learn about Noah...but they are not seen as Christian figures. It relates, but if the common perception of Christians is that they relate to the New Testament...that's what you have to base your argument off of.
Over 40% of Americans and 64% of evangelicals hold to a view of the origin of the universe which is firmly rooted in a specific interpretation of Genesis. You are saying that most Christians dont consider Genesis to be part of their Bible. Statistically that is a false statement. Be better
It's not up to the rest of us to speak to you in your ignorance, it's up to you to catch up to speed with the religion you claim to be practicing. Without the Old Testament nothing in the New Testament matters. Do you even understand why Jesus was considered so controversial?
Two points.First, Christians and Catholics are not distinct groups, except for in the sense that all Catholics are Christians, whereas all Christians are not Catholics.Second, 'Christians' read the Bible, Old Testament inclusive. Maybe you don't, or the denomination of which you are a member doesn't, but — I assure you — the greater majority of Christians do.
"Christians and Catholics are not distinct groups"Wrong. They both use the Bible as a foundation, but Catholics also follow many non-scriptural sources and openly engage in what real Christians easily recognize as heresy and borderline idolatry.
Are you saying that Catholics are not Christians?
@max I don't know where you learned statistics hun, but 40% isn't a majority nor are Evangelicals the majority of Christians...You still haven't commented on focusing that man made scripture (aka the bible) isn't deemable as unforgivable sin, and that this argument could have been directed to Divine Law (which is the 10 commandments) which doesn't mention homosexuality (negatively) yet instead tells us to love they neighbor.
Servandorosario you have literally no idea what you're talking about. The 10 Commandments are like the Biblical Bill of Rights--the first 10 of over 600 Commandments. Thank you for proving exactly why it's important for Christians to understand the Old Testament. Please pick up a Bible and actually read the whole thing before you call yourself religious or wise.
The 10 Commandments are the ONLY scripture classified as "DIVINE LAW", this is fact. Everything else, has been stated by MAN...not God.
Jesus would be rather disappointed in you @deusvult
@deusvult "According to Exodus in the Old Testament, God issued his own set of laws (the Ten Commandments) to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments are considered divine law because God himself revealed them. And because they were spelled out specifically with no room for ambiguity, they’re also positive law. Hence they’re also known as divine positive law."http://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/I'm sourcing (an even common known aspect, that the "10 Commandments" is the only scripture seen as truly "Divine" and from God),, and you're simply stating "wrong" lol You even asserting that human law (the bible) is equal to God's law (10 Commandments) GOES AGAINST CHRISTIANITY (ie: you're sinning by asserting such). "Thou shall not take thy lords name in vain" Claiming that man's words are the word of God is taking thy Lord's name in vain.
You assert that human law (the Bible) is not equal to God's Law (the 10 Commandments, revealed to us in the Old Testament), and you do so based on Exodus in the Old Testament? While also maintaining that Christians don't read the Old Testament?
The 10 Commandments is the common law of Christianity/Catholicism @chasuk . The 10 Commandments are no way comparable to the depths that is The Old Testament. (I've also mentioned the 10 Commandments being present in the Old Testament on this page, so I've acknowledged the irony)Let's just focus on the content, rather than the perceived contradiction for a second. If we can constitute that Sin pertains to "The Divine Law" and the only "Divine Law" is that of The Ten Commandments, which have no mention of Homosexuality, could we conclude that the Christian God had no mention of homosexuality being a sin in his divine laws given to humans. Thoughts on the second portion of this @chasuk ?
Chasuk, that's what I'm saying. He is an extremely confused person.
Ignoring content to make unsubstantiated smart ass quips. I don't know about you, but I've performed in actual debates...and that tactic doesn't get you a win...You've ignored a blatant question. God's Divine Law defines sin. Comparing human word to the word of God is taking his name in vain, which is a sin itself. God's 10 Commandments don't tackle homosexuality. Why are you not acknowledging this aspect @deusvult ?Or are you saying Jesus died for all our sins that haven't even been written yet?
@servandorosario, whether or not "the Christian God ... mention[s] homosexuality [as] being a sin in his divine laws" is outside the scope of any dialogue I was having with you.Sorry, but I don't have time for rabbit holes tonight.
How is it outside the scope of the dialogue if it was my main point? I'm not asking to validate my argument, I'm asking for your thoughts on it. No need to be petty...@chasukYou refusing to acknowledge an argument isn't "outside the scope", and refusing to engage in such in an actual moderated debate would get you a loss of points so...Though I'm asking for discussion, not debate...so let's discuss?
It might have been your main point, but it wasn't the point I addressed. And I wan't being petty, I was being truthful. Politely truthful, even.However, I've taken care of my obligations for tonight, and I don't have to be to bed for several hours. I now have time to approach rabbit holes without fear.As for my thoughts ...First, I am no longer a Christian, but when I was, I believed that God communicated through revelation and scripture. Specifically, through the Old and New Testaments.Second, I don't associate the "Divine Law" with the 10 Commandments, but with the Great Commandment ( Matt 22:35–40 and Mark 12:28–34).Third, as a consequence of the second point, I don't believe that Jesus would have objected to homosexuality. Not only because it is not contained in the "Divine Law," but also because the directive of the Great Commandment would seem to contradict such an interpretation.My thoughts, in a nutshell.^^
@chasuk Well I apologize for not taking your "time" comment as not literal and rather as a petty quip...in a generally pettiness filled debate culture...it's understandable that I did, though I still apologize for such. If we define (as in the common definition) Divine Law as the Law coming from God itself, and the only Law that has certifiably come from God is the 10 Commandments (as much religious media would deem it the only actual "divine law") and the rest of Bible which is meant for interpretation. The 10 Commandments" is the only part of the Bible that isn't up for debate or interpretation as per: http://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-ten-commandments/ States "The Ten Commandments are considered divine law because God himself revealed them. And because they were spelled out specifically with no room for ambiguity, they’re also positive law. Hence they’re also known as divine positive law."Would taking Human Account (the rest of the bible) over the literal Divine Law of the 10 Commandments not be a sin itself? As it would qualify as "Taking the lord's name in vain". Upon seeking an answer to this question, would taking the human accounts (aka: the rest of the bible) over the only laws that could be considered as concretely divine (10 Commandments) be illogical and if not sinful in itself. Definitely not a regular angled approach on the matter, but it could certainly be entertained. Agreed on Jesus, he was a rather dope and accepting dude.
From my current perspective, the entire Bible is a 'Human Account," so I'm less entertained by theorizing which pits one human-authored construct against another.Thanks for the chat, @servandorosario.Ta for now!
Yeah @chasuk , yeah I realized the irony that even the "10 Commandments" is a human account myself, I was hoping you'd not take that opportunity...but I'm arguing based on the Christian belief (as provided by theory I've sourced above) that the only "Divine Law" is that of 10 Commandments. Forget personal belief for moment (as I'm a Catholic raised and chosen Taoist myself, so I'm not arguing for a personal belief sake) and entertain that argument. (When you have the time of course!)
you are a heretic repent and be saved
@deusvult Sit on my face.
i'd rather throw you in the Iron Maiden
@deusvult kinky ;)
P.S. I love when Protestants mock Catholics...Your founder deviated from Catholicism because he wanted to bang and behead multiple wives. Yet...Catholics are heretics...LOL
@chasuk I would not necessarily define Catholics as Christian. there is too much ceremonial magick and non-scriptural influence for my liking. That said, their belief in the death and resurrection of Christ makes them TECHNICALLY Christians whether I think they're heretics or not which by the way they are
There are quite a few definitions of 'Christian.' By the only definition relevant to me — the anthropological one — Catholics are Christians.You can propose this as a debate topic if you want, and I might be interested, depending on how the proposition is framed.
@chasuk I might. If I did, it would be framed as the truth which is that Catholics are just modern-day Pharisees and do not represent what Christ taught. Not that most Protestants do, either...
@deusvult, the proposition that "Catholics are just modern-day Pharisees" would be harder to defend. I suggest restricting yourself to your latter proposition, that Catholics do not represent what Christ taught.
@chasuk Yeah that will probably be easier. I might do this. The next one I just offered is about the Leftist media normalizing pedophilia and its connection to PizzaGate.
@deusvult, again, I think you are attempting too much. I suggest that you tackle leftist media's normalization of pedophilia and the Pizzagate conspiracy theory separately.
@chasuk Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is exactly what I'm talking about. They're promoting terms like that and "fake news" around it, while promoting pedophilia through their psyops outlets like Vice and Salon, in order to distract from the scandal of the century.
@deusvult, real conspiracies exist. The term conspiracy theory denotes those theories that haven't been proved. I understand that it is usually dismissive and derogatory, but that's not how I'm using it here. If you'd prefer substituting it for a different term, please suggest one.In the interim, I'll use conspiracy hypothesis.You have just increased your burden, not lessened it. You now have to prove the likely truth of your conspiracy hypothesis — or your hypotheses — before you can address any other claim.Build your larger claim step-by-step. Persuading your interlocutor of a series of smaller things is far easier and more "sticky" than starting with the kitchen sink.
@chasuk "Conspiracy theory" was a term developed by the CIA to discredit narratives they didn't want floating around in the public's mind. Anything the Leftist media bends over backwards to call a "conspiracy theory" is probably true:http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/24/the-term-conspiracy-theory-was-invented-by-the-cia-in-order-to-prevent-disbelief-of-official-government-stories/
If you'd like, you can accept my debate on the topic and we can discuss it then.
@deusvult, I don't see your debate on the topic.
@chasuk @deusvult I suggest you try to narrow down the topic to make the conversation more meaningful. Looking forward to it!
@gigi I think a bunch of sick, depraved animals raping children in the highest halls of political power--and a media that defends them at every turn--is pretty much as meaningful a conversation as anyone could have.
@chasuk It's there, I offered it yesterday or two days ago.
This has been a fun royal rumble.
This thread has now received more attention and comments in less than 3 hours, than all but apparently one other debate has gotten in 3 MONTHS. Deus Vult!
Please read my comment below. If you are going to be on this site, you need to educate yourself on the rules of logic and the validity of arguments.
your comment is meaningless anecdotes easily disproven by the statistics and figures I've already posted twice on this page, supporting literally every aspect of the argument that I made during this debate. good game
Let me clarify some things about the "problems that the homosexual community has" as stated by deusvult:The disease: are you referring to HIV/AIDS? Because this is not a disease limited to just the homosexual community. I would be the same for me to say that the heterosexual community is not blessed because greater numbers of people with fatal forms cancer are heterosexual. I do not have any knowledge of a disease that is only present with homosexuals, if there is however, I would love a link to the scientific research supporting that claim. So, this argument is invalid.The mental illness: are you referring to the increased chances of a person to face depression, have suicidal thoughts, etc.? If so, let's take a step back and evaluate this situation. If you were born blue, but everyone around was born red, you would grow up your whole life thinking you were different. You face discrimination, you would be singled out, others might even bully you and make you feel inferior because you were blue. Someone who has faced traumatic events, or has reason to fear such events to occur, would cause them to thus have one of these "mental illnesses." It is not a punishment by God, but a retaliation by society for something it does not understand. A great example of this is Galileo's telescope and how it changed our perception of space and the heavenly bodies (aka planets, stars, suns, etc.) Galileo faced ridicule, was rejected, laughed at, and all but destroyed by the religious hierarchy for introducing something new to mankind; however, we see it as one of the greatest discoveries in human history, not as a "punishment" by God.NOW LET ME ADDRESS THIS ABSURDITY:"And not from having unprotected sex with thousands of strangers, when they go out to these clubs, where they have these dark rooms where they're sucking dicks from every direction, they don't even know whose dick it is, getting all these diseases because that's what their culture puts forth as normal and fun and part of the gay community."This right here is called reductio ad absurdum. Defined as: a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion.This is VASTLY NOT the gay community. What you are speaking of is an extreme example, a stereotype that you have heard that helps your argument by sounding absolutely ridiculous. Within the LGBTQ+ community we look out for one another, we push for our community to practice safe sex, and as a homosexual speaking from experience I've only ever had protected sex. However, teenage pregnancy is on the rise, so if anyone is practicing unprotected sex, I'd say by roughly estimated numbers, that heterosexuals take that prize. You also must be 21 years old to enter most gay clubs and/or bars, and even then these "dark rooms with lots of dicks" are not the common trend in these places. It would be the same for me to associate strip clubs with every club and bar in America. Sound ridiculous? That's because it is, and it is the same logic you attempted to use to make your argument.So, if you would like to make an LOGICALLY VALID argument, perhaps you should think through the counterpoints to your own. You made biased claims and stated opinions, but besides making your own interpretations of scripture (which in itself is an interpretation; so you made an interpretation of an interpretation), you have no actual argument here. There is no merit to your statements, and you are using what is known in the educated community as unsound logic.
"muh feelings and anecdotes" is not an argument
statistics, on the other hand, actually are arguments. here are some I already posted that you conveniently neglected to read or addresshttp://marriagepolicy.org/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuity-breeding-a-national-health-problem/Here is a direct quote, with reference links inside that article, that you will also ignore:"Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men. Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. Only 10% of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.The incidence of HIV in men who have sex with men is 44 times that of heterosexual men, and 40 times greater than womenHomosexual men are 46 times more likely than heterosexual men to contract syphilis.HIV is the #10 cause of death for black males and #24 for white males (Table D).While there are far fewer lesbians than gays, lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have had over 50 sex partners than heterosexual women.63 percent of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men (cite).The majority of lesbians commonly have sex with men."
I'd like once more to point out that on this very page, I posted links over and over to support what I said about the "down low brother" epidemic, the fact that most lesbians are also sleeping with men, homosexual promiscuity, and black heterosexuals having far more STDs than white ones. My opponent failed to respond to or refute a single one of these well-documented points.
The debate shifted very quickly, as often happens, away from the specific topic itself and didn't really get back to it. Max did the vast majority of the speaking but much of what he did was simply call D's assertions 'ridiculous'. What IS rather ridiculous to me that anybody would even argue that homosexuality is 'Not a sin' since the Bible clearly lays it out to be a SIN in both the OT and in the NT by both Paul and Jesus Himself. I would have pointed out the fact that there is a clear distinction between "It shall be an abomination unto thee," such as wearing mixed materials, Laws clearly meant specifically for a specific people at a specific time, and "It is an abomination unto God," such as homosexuality and murder or things that go against the Natural Order set forth by God.
@nelsonj747 I rebut this pretty thoroughly herehttp://americablog.com/2015/04/god-fine-marriage-equality.html
As someone who agrees with Deusvult, he did a severly lacking job of arguing the case.
@camx001 I really didn't though
@camx001 I quoted from both the Old and New Testament, as well as highlighting the abundantly obvious fact that people living a sinful lifestyle are being punished--and NOT living the blessed kind of life one would expect from someone following God's commandments.
I haven't laughed this hard in a while. The facial expressions Max was making and the Points of View that deusvult has. HAHAHAHA
@genuine_504 I like how he demanded "facts and evidence" right before refusing to address a single one of the multitude of sources I posted in this comment thread. To this day, he has yet to acknowledge a single piece of the mountain of evidence I presented to him.