Homosexuality is a sin and if one continues in the sin, then it will sadly lead that person to hell.

I am glad to see Telanian have this discussion with me. I trust that we all will seek to come to know the truth. Obviously, Telanian is an atheist. If I were to put my argument in a form, then it would go something like this: If God exists, and the Bible is God's word, and the Bible teaches X, then X is true. X would stand for homosexuality is a sin. I know that for my argument to stand, then I must prove God exists and the Bible is God's Word, and we can debate on those two subjects in the near future. I am going to go ahead and do so since I must prove my proposition. Obviously, my opponent realizes that the Bible does clearly teach that it is a sin and if it not repented of, but rather continued in, then it will tragically lead that person to hell. My proposition stands true if I can prove the first two things. The cosmological argument states: "If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked: Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.). Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist's argument, then, is this: Everything that exists is either matter or mind. Something exists now, so something eternal must exist. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal. Either matter or mind is eternal. Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above. Thus, it is mind that is eternal. That eternal mind is God. (http://www.apologeticspress.org... The teleological argument states: 1. If the Universe shows evidence of design,it must have had a designer. 2. The Universe does show evidence of design. 3. Thus, the Universe must have had a designer. (http://apologeticspress.org...) The universe, animals, human beings, etc. all show design, therefore pointing to a Designer - God. The moral argument states: "Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values exist. Conclusion: God exists. Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed manner in his debates with atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace Matson (p. 285). If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized. The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong). Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some "higher law which transcends the provincial and transient") which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized. Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why do people generally think that some actions are "right" and some actions are "wrong," regardless of people's subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is "evil" or "wicked" (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are "a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses" ("Metaphysical," 2011)—and "rely on moral values." The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist." (http://www.apologeticspress.org...) I can guarantee you that my opponent believes that some activities are intrinsically and objectively moral or immoral, good or evil. If this does prove the case, then my opponent will be surrendering and testifying indirectly that the moral argument is stronger and is coherent and correspondent with Ultimate Reality - God. He states about the Bible: " an ancient collection of confused and contradictory writings by scientifically illiterate men, which cannot be taken seriously as a truthful message by anyone today." (1) My opponent has the burden of proof placed on him to show where the Bible contradicts itself and is not compatible with science. (2) He states that the Bible cannot be taken as a "truthful message". Implicitly, my opponent believes then that there is such a concept as a lie. He must believe that lying is immoral. Else why would he debate me on this proposition unless he believed that he was doing the moral (right) thing - tell the truth. Obviously, he believes that I am teaching a false proposition - a lie. He has further given stronger allegiance to the moral argument that God exists. "Here is a strong argument for the Bible being the word of God: "If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . . property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production), then the Bible is the word of God. It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . . property Z. Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the word of God. By "property A, property B,...," etc., Warren meant "affirmative propositions regarding some fact regarding the Bible" ("God's Word" 18). It is clear that the argument is valid in form. It is a hypothetical syllogism in which the antecedent of the major premise (1) is affirmed. The only way the argument could be shown to be unsound (i.e. the truth of the conclusion does not follow from the premises) would be to show at least one of the premises is false." (http://warrenapologeticscenter.org...) You could put in the Property A = the fulfillment of hundreds of OT prophecies, Property B = eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Christ, Property C = Eyewitnesses of the miracles of Jesus, Property D = scientific foreknowledge, etc. I would be glad to go into this a little deeper in the next round. My opponent states: "they can't even come up with a rational explanation as to why that god would outlaw homosexuality. The simple fact is that if god exists, if he is good and if he says that homosexuality is a sin - all things claimed by my opponent in his first statement - then there will be a good, rational reason as to why he would do so. So I ask my opponent: what is that reason?" It is obvious that my opponent believes in logic and reasoning. Where does logic and reasoning derive from? The naturalistic worldview cannot account for logic and reasoning because how could the blind, random chance forces of matter (which somehow created itself - "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist") change or convert over into mind?" It can't! Only the Christian worldview can account for logic and reasoning in that it derives from an Ultimate Mind - God. My opponent asked me about, "continuing in sin"? I summarize by stating that there are former homosexuals who have given up their sin by changing their lives to God in living a righteous life. They are still tempted though and have strong tendencies or desires to commit the sin, yet overcome those temptations through submission to God who are striving to walk in the light, thus have the promise of eternal life.