The Bible Says Plainly that Homosexuality is a Sin

My opponents clear resolution was shown to be: "The Bible Says Plainly that Homosexuality is a Sin" "I am debating whether or not the God, in the Bible, condemns homosexuality as a sin." However my opponent states that it is I who have "strayed from the topic he intended" He further goes onto state: "This debate is NOT ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT SIN." My opponent seems to confuse me. He states in his resolution that the Bible says plainly that homosexuality is a >>>>Sin<<<<< But then he goes onto say this debate is >>NOT<< ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT A SIN" In his resolution he further states that he is debating about whether or not the Bible condems homosexuality as a >>>SIN<<< If this is indeed my opponents viewpoint then he either hasn't read my arguments clearly, or is simply attempting to confuse the voters of this debate and attempting to make it seem as if I have twisted his words so as to achieve an easy victory. So as there will be no confusion either on part of my opponent or the voters in this debate I think it is quite clear what my opponent's original intent of the debate was. Attempting to change the meaning of the debate in the last argument is in my opinion bad form. My opponent says "he may have made the mistake of sounding like that". However I truely do not believe it was a mistake at all. The word sin wasn't merely thrown in there haphazardly. The word sin was not only present in the topic of the debate but was clear in my opponents resolution. Also in his second round he seemed to have absolutely no problem with the way the debate was taken. Instead he openly embraced it. So I'm afraid this attempt to sway the meaning of this debate isn't a topic that I would have taken. "The commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" is condemning all unlawful killing. Any other killing is either capitol punishment or commanded by God Himself, in which case it is not sin at all. I hope we understand each other now." I'm afraid I understand you less. Laws made by humans? So if it was law to kill all Christians, then in your opinion this would not be a sin? I'm sorry but your argument lack substance. "The idea that God created some people homosexual is ludicrous. God, in the New and Old Testament says that homosexuality and sodomy are both abominations. God created something He hates? Ludicrous. God said all of His creations were good." Sodomy is the inequivalent of homosexuality. Sodomy is another word for rapists. Because that is the instance God was condemning. RAPE. I don't see Jesus stating that he hates Homosexuality anywhere in the new testament. You have failed to provide any evidence of this. Additionally Old testament laws are only valid if reinforced by Jesus, which they have not been. Jesus clearly reinforced his hatred of idolatry in the new testament. In Mathew Chapter 4: 8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 9and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." 10Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'" 11Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him. My opponents rather backward attempt at using baptism to render an argument is ridiculous. My opponent is simply grasping at straws as he offers no logic nor scriptual proof to back himself. The only laws in the old testament that are enforced are ones Jesus has enforced. Your verses in Leviticus have been clearly refuted. Attempting to back them after their refutation is genuinely not a wise thing. You have conceded: "Yes, there are some laws that have been outdated, like the laws that states if men touch a woman while she is on hear period, he has sinned." You then go onto state that homosexuality is not one of them because: "they are sins against you own flesh" It makes absolutely no sense to me about how touching a woman with her period is not a sin against your own flesh. How does this differ from homosexuality? It doesn't. Only laws that were re-enforced by JESUS are applicable. Obviously as you have failed to offer any evidence showing such, I'm forced to believe you concede that Jesus did not strike down homosexuality. "Having said this, my argument from 2 Timothy still stands and awaits refutation." Stating that it is I who put words in Paul's mouth is opinionated, has no factual backing, whereas the opposite holds true. It is you who put words in Pauls mouth by taking terms translated over and over and using them for your own benefit and justification in a debate. This scripture has clearly been refuted, you gain nothing by dwelling on it. In defense of Matthew 18:15-17, you purposefully misquoted a bible verse for your own benefit. Clearly matthew is only asking for you to correct someone if they sin against YOU. Obviously homosexuals if they are sinning (which is a matter between God and themselves) it is not for you to correct them, as they are not sinning against you. The most fragile and petty thing I think one can do is purposefully misquotes the Bible for their own benefit and self righteousness. Matthew 25:40 "And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" Again you clearly have no understanding of the Bible. As you are again misrepresenting what was said to benefit your false notions. This clearly means that by turning away the poor, the sick, the homeless (the least of my brothers) and not helping them you are doing an ill against God. The same goes with helping them. Let me post the whole of the scripture so that the voters can clearly understand what you have misrepresented: 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.' In your reference to your supposed "Greek superiority" do you think that you are the only one who has a comprehension of the greek language? Millions do, and millions have been attempting to determine what paul meant. Additionally lets even assume paul had meant this. Did Jesus say or affirm this? No. In fact Paul was actually against the concept of marriage and sex at all. He frequently denotes that marriage should only be used as a last resort in his writings. To leave my opponent who obviously is set in using the Bible as a weapons, let me impart some wisdom: "I came not to Judge the world but to save the world" John 12:47 "Judge no man" John 8:15 "Avoid Hypocrisy. Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others" Mathew 7: 3-4 As should be obvious in this debate. Sin is only to be judged by God not by man. My opponents lack of understanding about what the Bible is, disqualifies him from judging what the Bible means. My opponent obviously enjoys using his Bible as a weapon and misquoting and misrepresenting pieces of scripture to suit his own judgemental position that clearly has no standing because it goes unenforced by Jesus.