The Instigator
Kandrake
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Sodom and Gomorra were neither Judged by God as wicked nor destroyed because of homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,637 times Debate No: 17122
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (122)
Votes (3)

 

Kandrake

Pro



Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve all heard of the story of Sodom and Gomorra. We’re told grand tales of a city so ‘wicked’ that the entire male population is gay! Gasp! And God, not liking gay people, or gay sex, decided that He had had enough with such evil, and wiped Sodom and Gomorra off the map. Our pastors, families, and neighbors, repeatedly tell us that both cities were annihilated because of homosexuality, which shows God’s aversion to it. But is this true? Was Sodom and Gomorra judged as wicked by God because of homosexuality? Was Sodom and Gomorra destroyed by God because of homosexuality? Based on the biblical references, I'd say no.






Firstly, I think it’s important to define what exactly homosexuality is. Meriam-Webster dictionary defines homosexuality as:








“1: Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. 2: Of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.”








The first definition describes the sexual orientation of homosexuality. However, I want to remove the word ‘direct’, because in order to direct something one must have ‘control’ over that said something, which implies a choice. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), people cannot choose their sexual orientation (http://www.apa.org..., paragraph 7).







The second definition describes same gender sexual behavior. However, I want to add the word ‘consensual’ because anything less than both (or all) parties agreeing to sex, is rape. Rape is a complete and separate entity from sexual orientation, and cannot logically be applied to the characteristics of a specific sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc), since there have been documented cases of rape committed by individuals of all sexual orientations. Rape also tends to be about power instead of sex or sexual desire (http://kidshealth.org..., paragraph 2) So within this debate homosexuality is defined as: “The tendency to have sexual desires toward another person of the same sex, as well as an act relating to, or involving the consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex”.

To make this debate more interesting, my opponent is allowed to challenge my definition of homosexuality, provided that they give rational reasoning for their claims.

This debate will NOT be about whether or not there really was a Sodom and Gomorra, or whether God really destroyed them or not.

My opponent may use only the Bible as a reference guide to why God judged Sodom and Gomorra as wicked, and ultimately, worthy of destruction.

1st round -Terms/acceptance
2nd round- Opening arguments
3rd round- Rebuttals
4th round- Rebuttals
5th round- Closing statements.







daley

Con

I accept the terms of this debate, and agree with Pro's definitions with the exception of the idea that sexual orientation is not a choice. I look forward to the opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Kandrake

Pro

I thank you, Daley, for accepting this debate. I also accept your rejection of the notion that sexual orientation is not a choice, but I must remind you to provide evidence to back up your assertion.




The 18th chapter of Genesis starts off by God, who is surrounded by His Angels, personally visiting with Abraham. After Abraham played the proper host, God relayed his plans to carry out an investigation of the behavior of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorra. Verse 23 shows us that God plans on destroying the city if he finds it to be wicked.





Genesis 18:20-21,23: 20And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?”





After persistent negotiations from Abraham, God agrees to not destroy the cities if ten righteous people can found (Genesis 18:24-32).


The nineteenth chapter finds God’s Angel’s entering into the gates of Sodom. Lot notices these foreigners and implores them to receive the hospitality of his home for the night. The Angels accept Lot’s offer, and they retire to his home for the evening (Genesis 19:1-3). And then the so-called incident of ‘homosexuality’ happens within the next several verses. I will attempt to analyze each one separately to prove my point.




Genesis 19:4: 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:”





This verse tells us that ‘all the people’ surrounded Lot’s house. Are women and girls not people? We’ll see later why the possibility of women surrounding the house (along with the men) is an important detail.




Genesis 19:5: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”




The Hebrew word used here is Yada’ (pronounced ‘yah-DAH’), and its literal translation is ‘to know’. However, there are different meanings of this word, and it has been used to mean to get ‘to know’ someone sexually. It all depends on the context of the particular verse. Is there a sexual connotation provided in this instance? Let’s find out.



Genesis 19:6-8: 6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”




We see here that the word yada’ is used again in verse eight, but this time it is written with a clear sexual connotation. For example, Lot precisely links the word ‘know’ with a sexual implication by saying that his daughters have never known a ‘man’. Obviously they know of men in a literal context, because their father is a man and I assume they’re well acquainted with him. Thus the only logical conclusion is that the context of ‘knowing’ in verse eight is implying a sexual nature. However, when the men demanded to know Lot’s guests (verse 5), there were no other words in the verse to back up any kind of supposed sexual implication to their intentions.




But perhaps the fact that Lot sexually offered his daughters to the mob in exchange for them pardoning his guests is evidence that the people of Sodom wanted to have sex with the Angels? And that this was just a way for Lot to offer other sexual alternatives. But where is the evidence for this? The word yada’ is mostly used biblically in a literal sense of coming to know someone, rather than sexually knowing them. So who’s to say that the people of Sodom didn’t really want to just know who these strange men were that visited their city? But if they were there to simply inquire about the angels, instead of having sex with them, then what wickedness was Lot talking about in verse seven? Could the people of Sodom been intent on trying to aggressively know the Angels in an effort to kill them? Is it possible that the crazed mob was intending on killing Lot’s guests, and Lot tried to bribe them against their intentions, by offering all the sex they could possibly have with his virgin daughters? And as mentioned above, all of the people surrounded Lot’s home, which implies women and girls were also present. Did these women and girls also plan on having sex with the angels? If so, could anyone still honestly claim that it was homosexuality that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorra? The ambiguous context, and lack of clear sexual connotation to the word ‘know’, introduces a problem into the argument that the people of Sodom were intent on having sex with God’s Angel. I'll get more into this lack of evidence after my opponent has had a chance to provide his opening argument.



As of now in this debate, we have no conclusive evidence to prove what exactly the word 'yada' was implying in verse 5. So let us assume that there IS a sexual connotation to the word ‘know’ in the case of the people’s intentions towards Lot’s guest, and that only the men of the city would partake in it, then does their intentions fall under the definition of ‘homosexuality’ as listed above?




Genesis 19: 9-11: 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door”


Remember, we are under the assumption that the men of Sodom wanted to sexually know the angels. In verse nine, the men say that they will deal worse to Lot than with his guests. This implies that they did not come to have a ‘good’ time sexually, but to carry out some sort of negative action towards the strangers. The fact that even after Lot basically said no to their demands, and they still insisted on sexually knowing the angels (even trying so hard as to force their way into Lot’s home), implies rape. Verses ten and eleven tell us that this specific assault by the people of Sodom is what determined that the city was wicked, and that God would destroy it. But can rape, even if between people of the same gender, be labeled as homosexuality? Not according to the definition of homosexuality. And if the charge against the men of Sodom is attempted rape, then what are we to conclude but that it was the threat of sexual assault that caused God to realize that the cities were wicked, instead of the presence of homosexuality (as defined above), that was not even described in this story in the first place?













daley

Con

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them IN LIKE MANNER, giving themselves over to fornication, and GOING ARTER STRANGE FLESH, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 6-7)

In Genesis 6:1-6 the Sons of God, angels, left their first estate (original habitation in heaven) to marry women on earth. God punished them (1 Peter 3:18-20), for what they did was NOT NARTURAL. It is unnatural for an angel to have sex with a human. Jude is comparing what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did to what the angels did at the beginning of verse 7, using the phrase "even as;" then in the midst of verse 7, "in like manner." What these people did was just as UNNATURAL as what the angels did; and so it says they went after STRANGE FLESH. Rape is wrong, but the mere rape of a woman by a man would not constitute him going after STRANGE FLESH. Homosexuality is condemned in Romans 1:26-27 as being AGAINST NATURE. Surely this practice would constitute going after strange flesh, and it was this for which Jude shows these cities were judged and destroyed.

My opponent claims that rape was the crime for which these cities were judged and destroyed; but notice that Lot offers them his two virgin daughters to do with as they please. (Genesis 19:8) No doubt, Lot was offering them to rape his two daughters instead of the two men. It would be odd to think that Lot would be encouraging them to do the very thing for which they were about to be destroyed. In that case God should have destroyed Lot right along with them! Obviously, it was something more than just rape, more than even violent rape, but HOMOSEXUAL rape these people had in mind. But let's examine some of my opponent's verses.

Genesis 19:4: "But before they lay down, the MEN of the city, even the MEN of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and YOUNG, all the people from every quarter:"

Pro claims women were there because it mentions "people," but no women are mentioned, only MEN; and men are indeed people. So Pro is merely ASSUMING women were there while I know for a fact that men were there cause the verse says so. Also, it was not customary in the Ancient Near East for women and YOUNG girls to accompany men to war or the scene of violent acts. Men usually left the women and young girls at home. But here, both old and YOUNG surrounded the house, we can conclude these were MEN and BOYS, not including little girls.

Genesis 19:5: "5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

Pro argues that the word "know" here is not being used in a sexual way, yet, he later admits the men came to RAPE the visitors under Lot's roof. But the demand in verse 5 came from the same PEOPLE in verse 4; are we to imagine that women and YOUNG GIRLS wanted to RAPE these two men? This is not impossible, but it sure is unusual to say the least! In fact, culturally, rape is perpetrated usually by males. This would have been homosexual rape, a very unnatural act!

"But if they were there to simply inquire about the angels, instead of having sex with them, then what wickedness was Lot talking about in verse seven? Could the people of Sodom been intent on trying to aggressively know the Angels in an effort to kill them? Is it possible that the crazed mob was intending on killing Lot's guests, and Lot tried to bribe them against their intentions, by offering all the sex they could possibly have with his virgin daughters?"

Notice how Pro previously argued that there was nothing in verse 5 to imply that the people wanted to have sex with Lot's guest, so where is the evidence they wanted to KILL them? At least we know that the Bible uses the word "know" at times to mean "sex." "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:25) "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived." (Genesis 4:1) But where does "know" ever imply KILL? Unless Pro can show us the Biblical usage of "know" as a reference to murder, we can rule it out as an option!

Also, Pro needs to explain to us how does one "AGRESSIVELY know" another person. How would becoming aggressive with them help them to literally know who these men were? How would KILLING them help them to know them? This interpretation needs further elaboration if we are to understand how you get to know a person by raping and/or killing them. When a stranger rapes a woman he just met, does raping her help him to know her? Obviously, the "knowing" in this case is a sexual, not an intellectual act!

"And as mentioned above, all of the people surrounded Lot's home, which implies women and girls were also present. Did these women and girls also plan on having sex with the angels? If so, could anyone still honestly claim that it was homosexuality that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorra?"

Yes, because even if women and little girls were trying to rape and kill the men (which Pro has not proved), the fact remains that the men and little boys also wanted to rape them; hence, ALL the men of the city were homosexual, guilty of buggery.

"But can rape, even if between people of the same gender, be labeled as homosexuality? Not according to the definition of homosexuality."

A person would have to be homosexual or at least bisexual (which still involves homosexual behavior) in order to rape someone of the same sex. Straight men rape women, gay men rape men. So the correct term would be homosexual rape, or buggery, in the case of Sodom.

"And if the charge against the men of Sodom is attempted rape, then what are we to conclude but that it was the threat of sexual assault that caused God to realize that the cities were wicked, instead of the presence of homosexuality (as defined above), that was not even described in this story in the first place?"

Jude 6-7 doesn't say this was a one time act; it may be that this was their practice. The men who wanted to sexually know Lot's guest were obviously attracted to the same gender before the men came to Lot's house. I don't believe homosexuality is the ONLY sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, but it was definitely ONE OF the sins for which it was destroyed.

Now, Pro doesn't believe homosexuality is a choice. But there has never been found any solid proof that there is a biological reason for being straight or gay. What's more, Leviticus 20:13 says that homosexuals should be put to death. Now, would God truly be just and loving were he to make a law putting men to death for that over which they have no control? Would God really be a God of justice for killing someone for how they were born? This would be just as unjust as a white man killing another man for being born black! I would like to ask Pro to tell us what is the biological difference between a strait person and a homosexual?
Debate Round No. 2
Kandrake

Pro

My opponent tells us that in Genesis chapter 6, angels left their first estate (Heaven) to marry human women. He then claims that God punishes these angels for having sexual relations with women on Earth, because it is unnatural. What verse leads him to this conclusion? Jude 1:6-7 which reads “6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” He asserts that Jude links the ‘going after strange flesh’ in Sodom and Gomorra, to the unnatural sins that caused God to punish the angels who married human women. But firstly, what contextual evidence proves to us that the angels who took human wives, were the same angels being punished in Jude 1:6? Genesis 6:1-2 says “1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”. Where in this verse does it lead us to believe that the angels who married women, left heaven to do so? How do we know that these angels were not already present on earth when they decided they wanted human wives? Verse 4 says “4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown”. The text never deems this as unnatural or sinful in any way, nor is God shown to have chastised the angels for their behavior.

So then what leads us to believe that Jude 1:6 is referring to the angels who had children with women, instead of the rebellious angels who, under the leadership of Satan, were punished by God? Revelation 12:7-9 reads “7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” This verse explicitly tells us that this group of angels (Satan and his followers) were most definitely punished and cast out of Heaven. And Revelation 12:4 which says “4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born” tells us that Satan and his angels, which accounted for a third of all of God’s angels (stars of Heaven), left heaven and went down to earth. But Genesis 6:14 mentions none of this happening to the angels who took human wives. Therefore, because Con’s presupposition that the angels who took wives in Genesis chapter 1, are the same angels punished for those sins in Jude 1:6; lacks the sufficient evidence, and or a rational scriptural basis to back it up; one can only conclude that any argument he presents that is based on this assumption, is automatically invalidated as a false claim based on faulty character association.

My opponent then goes on to assert that Romans chapter 1 calls homosexuality unnatural, and that this proclamation surely must be the ‘strange flesh’ that Jude mentioned as one of the sins of Sodom and Gomorra. But are we to automatically assume that because Paul supposedly deemed homosexuality as unnatural, that the sexual relations between two people of the same sex (whom share the same human flesh), constitutes as going after ‘strange flesh’? Based on what biblical evidence can we logically link supposed unnatural sex acts between humans, to that of sexual acts geared towards strange flesh? How do we know that strange flesh doesn’t mean animal flesh, thereby implying bestiality? We don’t know, because Jude neither elaborated nor defined what strange flesh actually is. And it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that going after strange flesh is nothing more than a euphemism for homosexual relations, when we have not the scriptural evidence to prove it. This makes Con’s assertions yet again, invalid.

I must bring to the attention of the readers the fact that my opponent is trying to twist the contents of my opening statement. He says “Pro argues that the word "know" here is not being used in a sexual way, yet, he later admits the men came to RAPE the visitors under Lot's roof”, when in fact I’ve said no such thing. My opening statement merely analyzed two different points of view about the connation of the word ‘know’. To quote myself, I said, “So let us assume that there IS a sexual connotation to the word ‘know’ in the case of the people’s intentions towards Lot’s guest, and that only the men of the city would partake in it…” This is not an ‘admission’ that the men of Sodom were intent on raping Lot’s guest, but simply me attempting to apply rational scrutiny to this particular viewpoint.

According to Con, there’s no evidence that women and girls were a part of the crowd that confronted Lot, but asserts that we know that men and boys were present. I agree that we know that men and boys were a part of the angry mob, but there is also evidence that women and girls were a part of it as well. Firstly, Genesis 19:4 says “4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:” explicitly stating that ‘all the people from every quarter’ of Sodom were gathered around Lot’s home. If it were just the men that were present, the verse would have only said that every male from every quarter stood before Lot’s home. Secondly, remember that in Genesis 18:32 God agreed not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous people could be found. Thus, in order for the cities to be found wicked (which they were), both the women and girls would have had to be found wicked as well. And since it was this specific mob incident that provoked God’s wrath, logically we can conclude that women and girls were also present in the attack against Lot, and therefore judged as wicked by God.

But he also says that even if women and girls were present, and they too were attempting to rape the angels, that wouldn’t change the fact that men and boys were also present, which would make them guilty of homosexual rape. In Con’s opinion, a man would have to be either homosexual or bisexual in order to rape a man. He even goes as far as saying “A person would have to be homosexual or at least bisexual (which still involves homosexual behavior) in order to rape someone of the same sex.” This, in his opinion constitutes as grounds for homosexual conduct, and thus evidence that homosexuality was a cause of Sodom and Gomorra’s destruction. But are men who rape other men really homosexual, and or bisexual by default? No. In fact, 98% of all Rapist who have sexually assaulted men are heterosexual (http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com...). And before my opponent claims that heterosexual women could have perpetrated the majority of these rapes, the facts show that male perpetrators account for 97-98% of all male sexual assault cases (http://www.uwstout.edu...). So in all actuality, a man is more likely to be raped by a heterosexual man than a homosexual, or bisexual man, rendering Con’s argument as nothing more than a false accusation.

During round 4 I will prove the rest of Con's arguments to be invalid, as well as introduce key evidence of my own to prove that the word 'know' was used in a context of attempted murder, instead of attempted rape.

daley

Con

"But firstly, what contextual evidence proves to us that the angels who took human wives, were the same angels being punished in Jude 1:6?"

Jude 6 doesn't tell us what the angels did after leaving their habitation, but verse 7 says "even as," or rather "just as," to compare what they did to what the people of Sodom did in "going after strange flesh." Genesis 6 is the ONLY Biblical account of angels going after "strange flesh," hence this is the only Biblical even to which it could refer.

"Genesis 6:1-2 …Where in this verse does it lead us to believe that the angels who married women, left heaven to do so?"

Common sense tells us that to marry the women the angels had to be on earth, so they no doubt had to come down from heaven. By committing this unnatural act they lost the privilege of heaven.

"How do we know that these angels were not already present on earth when they decided they wanted human wives?"

They might have been, but I don't base my beliefs on assumption, rather, on what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't say they were already on earth BEFORE they decided to take wives. But it DOES tell us that heaven is the proper habitation of angels, so based on what it DOES say we can reasonably conclude that they were in heaven when they made this decision. Also, Genesis 6:1-2 was discussing a period in Noah's day, and say it was at this point that the angels SAW (noticed) the daughters of men THAT THEY WERE FAIR (beautiful). Now, women had been "fair" for over two thousand years before that time, so if the angels had been on earth for a long time before this, it seems odd that they only NOW began to notice women were beautiful. If, however, these angels were previously busy IN HEAVEN, having no time to observe intently and ponder on how women looked, we can now understand why it too so long for them to first notice women in this peculiar way.

Even if these angels were on earth BEFORE deciding to take such wives, their obedience to God would leave the heavens open to them and would not constitute a LEAVING of their habitation as in Jude. It was their DISOBEDIENCE that constituted their permanent ABANDONMENT of heaven, and not only the physical act to coming down to earth alone. So when Jude says they "KEPT NOT their first estate," he was not only talking about their coming to earth, but more importantly, their GIVING UP RIGHTS to live in heaven by their unnatural acts.

"Verse 4… The text never deems this as unnatural or sinful in any way, nor is God shown to have chastised the angels for their behavior."

Jesus said that angels don't marry (Matthew 22:30), so what the angels did in Genesis 6 was wrong. There is no record in Genesis 9 that God chastised Noah for getting drunk (vs 21), but that doesn't mean drunkenness is not a sin. (Eph 5:18) Biblical marriage is always between a man and a woman, but angels have no gender and hence were not created to marry. Also, a husband's responsibility is to work for and care for his wife and children; to do that, an angel would have to stay on earth to be there to constantly provide, comfort, and protect his family. This would constitute an abandonment of their proper place in heaven.

My opponent then claims that Jude 6 is referring to the angels under Satan in Revelation 12:7-9 and says: "This verse explicitly tells us that this group of angels (Satan and his followers) were most definitely punished and cast out of Heaven."

But Revelation 12 doesn't say that these angels ever went after STRANGE FLESH, whereas we know the ones in Genesis 6 did marry another species. Also, Pro assumes that Genesis 6 should mention the punishment on the angels to run smoothly with Jude's mention of a punishment, but Genesis 6 mentions no casting out of heaven as in Revelation 12 either. So the same argument he is using so show Jude wasn't referring to Genesis 6 would also show Jude isn't referring to the even in Revelation 12. Sometimes even among the 4 Gospels, the same even is mentioned where one Gospel contains details the others leave out, so this proves nothing much. (Luke 8:27; Matt 8:28)

Further, Revelation 12 CANNOT be talking about the same even as in Jude 6 because Jude was making a HISTORICAL statement about what had happened, while Revelation is a prophecy of "things which MUST (that is, WILL) shortly come to pass." (Rev 1:1) Revelation 11 and 13 are prophecies about the future, we have no reason to believe chapter 12 is any different. The only Biblical historical even that fits Jude's description is in Genesis 6.

"But are we to automatically assume that because Paul supposedly deemed homosexuality as unnatural, that the sexual relations between two people of the same sex (whom share the same human flesh), constitutes as going after ‘strange flesh'? Based on what biblical evidence can we logically link supposed unnatural sex acts between humans, to that of sexual acts geared towards strange flesh? How do we know that strange flesh doesn't mean animal flesh, thereby implying bestiality?"

Strange can mean FORBIDDEN. For example, the Jews were forbidden to have other gods, hence, other gods were called STRANGE gods. (Exo 20:3; Isaiah 43:12) It also means that which is WRONG, or UNBIBLICAL, like when it talks about ‘STRANGE doctrines." (Heb 13:9) So the Men of Sodom were going after flesh that was forbidden, unlawful, according to God, for them to be having. "Strange" is anything that is unusual, or taboo, and surely homosexuality fits that description. Male flesh is a STRANGE thing for another man to go after sexually. Most cultures don't accept the practice and many homosexuals have only come out of the closet in recent times.

The Greek word for "strange" in Jude 7 is heteros, from where we get the word "heterosexual." It was human flesh they went after, not animal. What does heteros sarx (strange flesh) mean? Eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of "different." In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term:
"The sense of "different" grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean "different," but merely "one other," a second of two. It does not necessarily involve "the secondary idea of difference of kind" (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it" (1934, p. 748).

So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can show that the "other" being referred to also is different in some additional quality. We do have contextual indicators that the Sodomites wanted to have intercourse with the MEN in Lot's house, but we have NO contextual indicators that they wanted to have sex with animals. Pro is ASSUMING things the texts don't mention (ie, bestiality), I'm using what the Bible itself says.

"Genesis 19:4… explicitly stating that ‘all the people from every quarter' of Sodom were gathered around Lot's home. If it were just the men that were present, the verse would have only said that every male from every quarter stood before Lot's home."

Pro is ASSUMING there were women in "every quarter." How does he know that Sodom was not just a haven for males only? I now challenge Pro to find one Bible verse that mentions women in Sodom. If all the people were male, it wouldn't have to say all the men. And in any case, it already described them as MEN and BOYS.

"in order for the cities to be found wicked (which they were), both the women and girls would have had to be found wicked as well."

Pro ASSUMES without proof Sodom was inhabited by women. How does he know it wasn't a home for homosexuals? Only MEN are mentioned in the verses under discussion, and only BOYS, let him show us where it mentions girls or women.

Pro, do angels marry women today? To be con't next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kandrake

Pro

In one of his statements, Con implies that no one would ever offer sexual bribes, as Lot did with his daughters, if the person being offered the bribe was not intending on committing acts of a sexual nature in the first place. He says, “notice that Lot offers them his two virgin daughters to do with as they please. (Genesis 19:8) No doubt, Lot was offering them to rape his two daughters instead of the two men.” I’m not sure how Con can make such a definitive statement without providing any evidence to back It up. We can just as easily say that there’s no doubt that Lot offered his two daughters to the people as a bribe to protect his guest from being murdered. What evidence can be presented that proves Con’s interpretation to be the correct one? My opponent then goes on to say that “It would be odd to think that Lot would be encouraging them to do the very thing for which they were about to be destroyed.” But this assertion contradicts the fact that Lot didn’t know of any plans by God to destroy his place of residence until after the attack on his guests. So Lot’s actions were not even based on what God found to be ‘wicked’ in Sodom and Gomorra in the first place. Basing his point on the fact that Lot sexually offered his daughters to be raped by the crowd, Con claims that there must have been something more than rape that caused God’s final judgment. He claims the final nail in the coffin was the crowd’s attempt to commit homosexual rape against the angels. But as I’ve already shown above, all of the people, including the women and girls, were a part of the crowd that supposedly attempted to sexually assault Lot’s guests. Which means that if the crowd as a whole called out for Lot to stand aside while they raped his guests, then the females would be just as guilty. Based on Con’s logic, this would be considered heterosexual rape, which contradicts his claims that it was homosexual rape, not just rape in general, that caused God to finally destroy Sodom and Gomorra.

Throughout this entire debate the central focus has been on the assumption that the word ‘know’, used by the people of Sodom and Gomorra, was in fact nothing more than a sexual euphemism that implied their intention to rape God’s angels. In round one I questioned this interpretation, and supplied an alternative theory in which the intentions of the people were not to rape the angels, but to kill them. Con takes issue with this assertion, asking me, based on what evidence can I claim this? He raises an important question. Is there any biblical evidence that supports my view that ‘know’ can in some instances have connotations denoting murder? I believe there is. It just so happens that there’s another story in the Bible that directly parallels the events in Sodom and Gomorra. The difference in this story however, is that one of the victim’s shares with us what the actual intentions were of the crowd that wanted to ‘know’ him.

Judges chapter 19 tells us the story of a Levite man who was traveling with his wife. Not wanting to stay in a non-Israeli city for the night, the man decided to travel to the nearest Jewish city of Gibeah, which belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. Once in the city, a native Benjamite invited the man and his wife to stay as guests in his home for a couple of nights (Judges 19:1-21). But lo and behold, a group of local men came banging on the door, demanding to ‘know’ the strangers.

Judges 19:22-23 says “22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. 23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.” Here we see a striking resemblance to the actions of the people of Sodom and Gomorra. The Hebrew word for ‘know’ (yada’) that was used in Sodom, is the same word also used in this verse. Judges 19:24 says “24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his wife; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.” Just like Lot, the Benjamite man attempts to bribe the men from their ‘vile’ intentions, by offering them two women to abuse for their pleasure. What is this vile thing that the men were trying to do to the Levite? Let’s find out.

Verses 25-29 says “25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his wife, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. 26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. 27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his wife was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. 28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon a donkey, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. 29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.” Unlike with Sodom and Gomorra, there were no angels to save the woman in this story. She was cast outside by her husband, and given to the crowd of angry men to be sexually assaulted. And they raped and abused her all night. Again, we see here that the phrase ‘knew her’ denotes a sexual connotation, because the text says that she was given to them for a sexual purpose, and then that they ‘abusively’ knew her. But then wouldn’t that mean that the men also wanted to know the foreign man in order to sexually abuse him too? No. In fact, the ‘sons of belial’ wanted to kill the Levite man, not rape him. After sending out pieces of his wife's body, the other tribes of Israel came together in military council near Gibeah (Judges 20:1-3). In Judges 20:4-5, the Levite man tells the Israeli chiefs what the group of men in Gibeah intended to do to him, “4And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my wife, to lodge. 5And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my wife have they forced, that she is dead.” Here, the Levite man says that the men of Gibeah wanted to kill him. If they wanted to ‘know’ him in a sexually abusive manner, then he would have made mention of it in his testimony to the tribal council, instead of just mentioning their intent to kill. If the word know can have a connotation denoting murder in this particular story, then is it not also possible that it meant the same thing in Genesis 19:5? After the Levite man finished telling his story, the tribes of Israel decided to make war on the city of Gibeah, and God agreeing with their decision, told them that He would deliver the Benjamites into their hands. The tribes eventually defeated the city of Gibeah and completely destroyed its walls, and killed all of its inhabitants (Judges 20:11-48). So just like with Sodom and Gomorrah, the city and people of Gibeah were completely destroyed by the will of God, though this time through his people (whom did not yet exist during the years of Sodom and Gomorra). This provides empirical proof that the word ‘know’, when applied to males in a certain context, can be used with a connotation to commit murder, instead of rape. Any argument that Con has based on the assumption that the men of Sodom wanted to sexually 'know' Lot's guests, must be rendered a fallacy due to lack of evidence of a sexual connotation.


daley

Con

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination."

Pro uses statistics from a rape crisis centre claiming that 98% of men who rape men are heterosexual. Just because they deny they are gay doesn't mean they are, such a thing isn't easy to admit in a society which looks down on the practise. But even if the men of Sodom were not gay, what they wanted to do to Lot's guests was a homosexual act. The act of two men having sex is a homsoexual act, and sex is sex regarless of weather it is forced or not. Rape is still sex (although it is forced), so I don't see this as refuting my position. When a man puts on a dress, or wears lipstic, or has the mannerisms of a woman, out intuition, our conscience, our guts, call it whatever you like, but something inside all of us tells us that this person is either gay, or at least leaning in that direction. What else are we to think of a man who rapes another man?

Pro maintains that there were women in the crowd because of the word "people," but are not men and boys "people"? The men and boys are the "people" of the text, and it is claer that Pro is trying to fit in the text characters it doesn't mention. He also argues that Lot didn't know that God was going to destroy the city until after the incident with the men who wanted to rape his guests. But this doesn't rebut my point. If God destroyed the city for rape, and Lot was offering them to rape his daughters, shouldn't Lot also have been destroyed since he was guilty of the same crime they were? We haven't gotten an answer from Pro on this. What was the difference between them wanting to rape the two men, and Lot offering them to rape his two daughters? One act invovled the unnatural, the other does not; one act is called an abomination, the other, while still wrong, is not!

Pro then uses Judges 19:1-20:5 to prove that "know" can mean "kill" or "murder." But he has failed in this regard. Judges 19:22 simply says the men wanter to "know" his guests. In verse 24 the man offers them his daughter instead. Verse 25 says: "But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his wife, and brought her forth unto them; and they KNEW her, AND abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." Notice that they BOTH knew her AND abused her. The two terms are not used synonymously; and futher, after knowing and abusing her, she still was not dead. They let her go. It wasn't their KNOWING her that caused her to die later in the story. It was their ABUSING her that caused her death. So by "knowing" her, they were doing just what "knowing" means in the other texts I have mentioned such as Genesis 4:1 and Matthew 1:25. They knew (had sex with) her, and abused her. People don't die from being "known," they don't die from having sex. Pro then mentions Judges 20:5 where the man says that the mob wanted to kill him, but this doesn't mean that the word "know" meant to kill. This is the conclusion he reached beacuse of what happened to his weak wife; but who knows, he may have survived the abuse. But even if I admit that he was right in assuming they wanted to kill him, this doesn't prove Pro's point. They could want to both know AND kill him, just as they knew AND abused the girl. It would be the abuse, NOT THE KNOWING that would have lead to his death, just as it happened with hers.

So we have good Biblical evidence that "know" means to "have sex with." We have yet no Biblical proof that it means to kill someone. We have seen that men and boys were in the crowd that came to Lot's house, we have no Biblical proof women and girls were there. We also know that a male raping a male is a homosexual act (even if the person doing it claims to be heterosexaul). A man raping another man would still be guilty of breaking the law of Leviticus 18:22 which condemens homosexual acts. We also know that homosexuality is unnatural according to Romans 1:26-27, and would constitute "going after strange flesh" as mentioned in Jude 6-7. We thus have good reason to conclude Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the sin of homosexuality as chief among their other sins.
Debate Round No. 4
Kandrake

Pro

Most of my opponent’s arguments consist of nothing more than regurgitating as many verses as possible, without providing textual evidence that links his supplied scriptures to his position. And for the few times that he does attempt to provide proof, his interpretations of that evidence are more based on subjective ambiguity rather than objective empiricism. Con disagrees with my position regarding Judges 19-20, and states “Notice that they BOTH knew her AND abused her. The two terms are not used synonymously; and futher, after knowing and abusing her, she still was not dead.” He yet again tries to disprove my point without even first understanding it. When I analyzed how the word ‘know’ was used in Sodom and Gomorra, I explicitly stated that 1) the word know has been used with several different meanings in scripture, 2) that we could determine it’s meaning based on the context in which it was written in, and on the other words in the verse that give credence to its contextual meaning, and 3) that when the word know is used in direct reference to a sexual connation, then it can be seen as such. For example, Lot mentioned his daughter’s virginity, and the Benjamite man mentioned his daughter's virginity (maiden) before they offered them to the angry crowds. This shows sexual connotation. However, a hostile mob showing up to demand that a citizen bring out their male strangers, so that they can know them has shown no ‘contextual’ evidence linking it to a sexual implication. We cannot assume that just because a woman is threatened with rape, that a man too would automatically, or has automatically been subjected to the same treatment.


In Judges 19:22 the men of Gibeah demanded their neighbor to bring out the Levite man so that they could know him. This was in the exact same manner that the men of Sodom demanded Lot to bring out the angels. However, in Judges 20:5, the Levite man himself tells us that the intentions of the men of Gibeah wanting to know him, was so that they could kill him. Wouldn’t the intentions of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah be more likely to parallel that of the intentions of the men of Gibeah? Or are we to believe that the intentions of the men of Sodom and Gomorra would have more likely been to commit rape against Lot’s male guests, even though there’s no evidence pointing us towards this interpretation; and even though the evidence of similar events that we ‘do’ have, point towards murder instead? Conclusions must be made on facts, not conjectures, and the fact is, that we have written in scripture, a man’s personal testimony of the vile intentions of a murderous mob, which wanted to ‘know’ him for the sole purpose of killing him.



In a desperate attempt to piece together a fragmented and inconclusive argument, Con brings up Leviticus 18:22, and Ezekiel 16:49-50. He claims that the word for abomination mentioned in Ezekiel, is also the same word for abomination in Leviticus 18:22. This I agree with him on, except he fails to mention that everything in chapter 18 of Leviticus is also labeled an abomination (Leviticus 18:26). This means that a man having sex with his daughter/niece, a woman having sex with her son/nephew, having sex with your first cousins, sacrificing your children, BESTIALITY, having sex with your neighbor’s wife, etc are ALL abominations. What evidence leads us to the conclusion that Leviticus 18:22 (which is datable in its supposed condemnation of homosexuality) is the abomination that Ezekiel is talking about, as opposed to bestiality or incest? There is nothing, save for personal bias that leads someone to the conclusion that leviticus 18:22 was being referenced in Ezekiel. We do however know that Con has yet to provide a verse in which homosexuality was specifically mentioned as a sin of Sodom and Gomorra, and now we know that the intentions of the people in these cities had nothing to do with raping God’s angels, but murdering them. This leads us to the conclusion that people have been reading their own anti-homosexuality views into a story that had nothing to do with homosexuality in the first place. We also have a second story in the Bible that parallels the that of Sodom and Gomorra. In this story we learn that when a crowd of angry people show up demanding that they be allowed to know the stranger in their land, that their intentions were to murder that stranger. We also learn that these men gang raped a woman, and because of their vile behavior, God judged their city as wicked and worthy of destruction. Therefore, I conclude that Sodom and Gomorra were neither judged as wicked, nor worthy of destruction by God because of homosexuality.



Furthermore, while I appreciate my opponent taking the time to debate with me, I must point out the fact that he continuously disregarded my terms for this debate. He accepted in full my definition of homosexuality, but continued to argue that a man trying to rape another man is homosexual conduct, when according to my definition, it is not. The definition I supplied was not an attempt to keep my opponent from winning this debate based on semantics, but because the definition of rape is scientifically different from the definition homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter). So while participating in CONSENSUAL sexual conduct with the same sex is considered homosexuality, rape or attempted rape (even when against someone of the same gender) does not constitute as homosexuality. It constitutes as rape. My opponent completely ignored this even after he openly agreed to my definition of homosexuality. That alone should be grounds for disqualification.



daley

Con

"However, a hostile mob showing up to demand that a citizen bring out their male strangers, so that they can know them has shown no ‘contextual' evidence linking it to a sexual implication. We cannot assume that just because a woman is threatened with rape, that a man too would automatically, or has automatically been subjected to the same treatment."

Yet, Pro ASSUMES that because the girl died, that they wanted to subject the man to the same treatment! What double standards on Pro's part! I cannot assume that "know" has a sexual connotation for the male guests just because it has such a meaning for the female daughter, but Pro can ASSUME it means to kill the man just because they killed the girl.

Further, I never argued that the word "know" meant sex just because it is also used in a sexual context for the women. Rather, I have demonstrated verses where the word "know" does carry sexual connotations (Matthew 1:25; Genesis 4:1) and I am arguing that in the absence of any proof that this word means "to kill," we are forced to choose between them literally "knowing" him INTELLECTUALLY, and their "knowing" him SEXUALLY! Clearly the mob wasn't there to know who he was intellectually, so the other option is that they wanted to have sex with him.

What's more, after all my opponent's call for CONTEXTUAL evidence that "know" is used in a sexual way, I have a few things to say: (1) I have shown CONTEXTUAL evidence that "know" DOES NOT MEAN KILL. Notice that the men "know" AND "abused" her all night, then let her go. The word "know" here simply CANNOT mean "kill." They didn't kill her, and let her go afterwards. They "knew" her but she was not dead. They wanted to know the man under his roof, but they ended up knowing the girl instead. (2) He demands UNREASONABLE proof for a sexual context for the word "know" which he himself cannot provide even where he claims it has such a meaning. For example, in Genesis 19:8 Lot says that his daughters "have not known man." He argues that this cannot mean to know intellectually, for they knew their father, and thus BY DEFAULT it means to know sexually; yet, he will not accept that if "know" is not the intellectual act of knowing in verse 5, that it is BY DEFAULT the sexual act! He therefore is using reasoning which he himself rejects to back up his own assertions. (3) Usually, the sexual context of the "knowing" was that the female became pregnant, but in the case of the men in Genesis 19, they cannot get pregnant, and the mob never got to "know" them anyway, so no pregnancy could occur. One is left to wonder exactly what it is Pro wants the context to say in order for it to mean "knowing" in a sexual way?

"Judges 20:5, the Levite man himself tells us that the intentions of the men of Gibeah wanting to know him, was so that they could kill him."

And because HE thought they wanted to kill him means that they did? Even granting my opponent all that, this doesn't prove the word "know" means to kill. All it means is that that they wanted to know (have sex with) AND kill the man. But I think my opponent fails here because he makes the leap of assuming too much; namely, that if the men wanted to know him, and he says they wanted to kill him, that "know" means "kill" in this context. In Numbers 14:2 the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron, then in verse 27 Yahweh said they were murmuring against him; does that mean Moses or Aaron (or both) is Jehovah? No. Similarly, the people said they wanted to "know" the man, the man said they wanted to "kill" him, does that mean that "know" means "kill"? Of course not! This is poor reasoning.

"In a desperate attempt to piece together a fragmented and inconclusive argument, Con brings up Leviticus 18:22, and Ezekiel 16:49-50. He claims that the word for abomination mentioned in Ezekiel, is also the same word for abomination in Leviticus 18:22. This I agree with him on, except he fails to mention that everything in chapter 18 of Leviticus is also labeled an abomination (Leviticus 18:26)."

Homosexuality is one of the abominations listed in Leviticus 18, murder is not, so if the sin of Sodom is an abomination, its more likely to be homosexuality than murder anyway.

"This means that a man having sex with his daughter/niece, a woman having sex with her son/nephew, having sex with your first cousins, sacrificing your children, BESTIALITY, having sex with your neighbor's wife, etc are ALL abominations."

And since the guests in Lot's house were angels, we know they were not related to the men and boys outside in the mob, so we can rule out those possibilities, leaving behind the one abomination of a man having forced sex with a man; a homosexual act. Also, since they specifically called for the MEN in his house, not animals, we can rule out bestiality as well.

"What evidence leads us to the conclusion that Leviticus 18:22 (which is datable in its supposed condemnation of homosexuality) is the abomination that Ezekiel is talking about, as opposed to bestiality or incest?"

Like I said, the angels were not related to the men of Sodom (hence, no incest), and they didn't ask Lot to bring out the animals, they wanted the men! Notice also that Pro actually says that Leviticus 18:22 is DEBATABLE in its condemnation of homosexuality. How much more clear can one get than this: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." What is unclear about that? It clearly condemns men having sex with men the same way they do with women. I guess the readers will decide it its clear or not.

"He accepted in full my definition of homosexuality, but continued to argue that a man trying to rape another man is homosexual conduct, when according to my definition, it is not."

Pro's second definition of homosexuality is this: "2: Of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex." Rape is still sex, forced sex, and therefore men raping men involved intercourse between persons of the same sex. This is a homosexual act even using Pro's definition. I also pointed out at the beginning that I didn't agree that persons were born gay and had no control over this. Developmental and social science models of behavioral sexual attraction attribute maturation of the testes or ovaries (gonadarche) as the biological basis for a child's budding interest in sexual matters. If true, it only means that puberty awakens an interest in sex, but does not dictate the choice of weather the object of attraction will be male, female or beast. Others argue age 10 to be the mean age of first sexual attraction, probably caused by the maturation of the adrenal glands during middle childhood, called adrenarche. Again, it is clear in both cases that no one is born either gay or strait, but develops interest in sex later in life, weather it be a gradual process beginning at age 10 with sexual attraction, followed by sexual desire, culminating in sexual behaviour; or an instantaneous interest caused by a pubertal increase in hormone levels. Also, sexual attraction in itself is not the same as the choice object of such attraction.

Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction to the same gender. But when people claim they are born gay, certainly this is not what they mean in all cases. For many of them, they refer to the fact that from an early age they (though male) liked to play with dolls, and put on lipstick, or wear a dress – to play the role of the female. But is there really such a thing as biological gender roles? Is there a chemical that causes a child to prefer dolls over toy trucks and cars? Is there anything in our harmones that could cause a male to want to wear a dress? Babies are not born with information locked away in their brains about high-heel shoes, lipstick and dresses. All these man-made items are things one has to learn about! A boy child can only play with a doll if its parents allow it to have one. Gender roles are learnt, not inert.
Debate Round No. 5
122 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
This debate assumes that the Bible is recording truth, otherwise there can be no debate.

Of course. However my views on the topic are not be limited by scope of this debate.

"I have a question about how Islam views the Old Testament. Does it view it as inspired? Authoritative?"

Slightly complicated issue.

Muslims believe that God sent Torah to Prophet Moses (Musa) and Zabur to Prophet David (Dawood) (Peace on Them). These were also revealed books, just like Quran. It is possible that other books were also sent - though we do not know the names.

However Muslims do not consider translation as original. So for Muslims, translations of Quran are not Quran. Reading translations is OK, but in case of confusion we should refer to original for confirmation.

We believe the Torah and Zabur are not available in original form.

This is trivially true. All Jews and Christians acknowledge that the OT (any version, any language) is not original - in the sense Muslims interpret original. Even the Hebrew versions are translated from other languages.

Apart from that we also believe that some selfish Rabbis ave distorted these books deliberately.

Comparing with modern OT most scholars believe that Torah corresponds closely with first five books of Bible. Zabur corresponds to the Psalms.

Muslims use Quran as 'the criterion' (Furqan) while reading bible. Any story or teaching corresponding with Quran is considered to be authentic. Anything that Quran contradicts explicitly, or otherwise contradicts morality of Quran is wrong or misinterpreted. We can't comment on the rest of material - even though we are free to quote it.

Overall Muslims respect Bible, even though we do not follow it completely. Through history, we have always competed with Christians and Jews in learning and scholarship of Bible.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
@ Kendrake

Prophet Lut (Peace on Him) was a prophet of God and hence a very righteous person. He could not offer his biological daughters in marriage to a 'mob'. For a Prophet, all the people of the community are like children. So when he talked about his daughters, he was talking about all the young women of the community. Naturally he was talking about marriage.

As per Quran, homosexuality was one of the problems with his community. Some of the other problems were robbing travelers, habitual lying, insulting and rejecting the Prophet, trying to drive out the Prophet, challenging the Prophet and God to bring on the punishment.
Posted by Kandrake 5 years ago
Kandrake
@baggins I knew you were coming from an Islamic point of view when you called Lot, 'Lut'. I'll say this, at least muslims have the sense to write that Lot didn't try to give his daughters to be raped (Islam believes Lut attempted to give his daughters to the men, in marriage). In this way Lot actually can be called 'somewhat' of a righteous man, as opposed to the Lot of the Bible/Torah.

I disagree with you obviously about Homosexuality being a reason the cities were destroyed. There's just no proof of that (Biblically speaking). Not even the Talmud claims that homosexuality was a reason for Sodom/Gomorrah's destruction.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Baggins,

This debate assumes that the Bible is recording truth, otherwise there can be no debate. I have a question about how Islam views the Old Testament. Does it view it as inspired? Authoritative?
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
I only voted based on poor formatting (spelling and grammar). I gave a tie on arguments. How else can I vote on argument, when both the debaters ignored a very big flaw in the text - which I think should be obvious to anyone! Obviously neither side gave a correct interpretation of the passage in question.

@ Kendrake

What I believe is based on Quran and Hadith, not Daley's interpretation of bible! Homosexuality was one of the reason they were destroyed. What I believe is just for records and does not lead to any point against you.
Posted by Kandrake 5 years ago
Kandrake
@Baggins "You do not make an offer, "Take my daughters and do what you want to do". Would God have spared the community had the mob accepted the offer!"

You say this^, but yet believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality (according to your voting tallies)? Does this mean that the City in Judges 19-20 was destroyed because of heterosexuality?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Baggins, how does that influence your vote, it was never even argued?
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
Both the sides are apparently knowledgeable about bible and worked hard on the debate. However, both of them ignored one big factor - which really makes the debate pointless.

This story is dubious. Prophet Lut (Peace on Him) was a righteous man and a prophet of God. If a mob trying to attack your guests (for murder or rape), you tell them to go home. Or you tell them, "Over my dead body!". Or you fight them. Or worst case - try to bribe them with some money.

You do not make an offer, "Take my daughters and do what you want to do". Would God have spared the community had the mob accepted the offer!

Pro seriously needs to pay attention to formatting. The debate would have been easier to read had both the sides broken the arguments into key points.
Posted by Kandrake 5 years ago
Kandrake
Like Cliff said, there's a lot of exposition in my arguments. But that's because I 'have' to explain every little detail. I'm trying to train myself to focus more on the important stuff lol, but it's hard.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You can format your stuff in Word and then copy/paste... if that helps.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
KandrakedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie on arguments. Both debated hard - but there was a big flaw in both arguments (Comments). Both used good sources. Both should have used better formatting - but Pro's was poorer.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
KandrakedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con: Good arguments, I gave pro spelling because you used caps lock to much.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
KandrakedaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry Kandrake, the offered daughters as a substitute is too compelling. It doesn't make sense why he would offer his daughters specifically for sex if the persons in question did not desire sex in the first place. It is clear that they wanted to have sex with the men, and the "strange flesh" connection that Daley draws is pretty strong.