The Instigator
ioannesmartinus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chrimill
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The "sin of Sodom" was not what we refer to as "sodomy" today.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 39415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

ioannesmartinus

Pro

This debate will be on the topic of the so-called "sin of Sodom," which traditionally has been interpreted as male homosexual intercourse (hence the term "sodomy" in English). I am taking the Pro stance, which is that this interpretation is incorrect. My opponent will be taking the Con stance, which is that the traditional interpretation is correct.

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance only. No arguments.
Round 2: Make your case. No addressing any points made by the opposing side.
Round 3: Rebuttals and (if so desired) further arguments.
Round 4: Closing argument (and additional rebuttal if so desired).


Rules:

The debate will primarily use the Christian scriptures (i.e. the Bible) as accepted in the Protestant canon: that is to say the 66 books of the Old and New Testament. Deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha) can be referenced, but only anecdotally. Any third-party papers or exegetical works may be used in support of one's argument(s) from scripture.

The primary English version of the Bible to be used in this debate will be the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); this is (currently) the most accurate English translation. Greek or Hebrew may be addressed in matters of interpretation, provided sources are cited. Other English translations may be used in conjunction with the NRSV, but my opponent will recognize the relative authority of the NRSV in comparison.

My opponent need not be Christian, or even religious at all, but must argue from the point-of-view of one who holds the traditional interpretation of the sin of Sodom as accurate. If one wishes to debate the authority of the Bible or the veracity of Christianity, this is not the place for it.


A preponderance of the evidence, so to speak, will be used to make one's case. For example, if there are multiple verses stating "the door was red" and one additional verse stating "the door was blue," the verses stating the door was red will (generally speaking) hold more weight in making a case.

I look forward to starting our debate, and thank you in advance to my opponent!
chrimill

Con

I accept your challenge, and look forward to this debate.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
ioannesmartinus

Pro

Thank you, chrimill, for accepting the debate.

My arguments will be divided mainly into three categories: those involving the story itself, other references to the sin of Sodom in the Bible, and other references to the destruction of Sodom in the Bible.

I have one minor request (for the sake of our voters), but it need not be a matter of contention should my opponent wish not to acquiesce: I ask that all Hebrew and Greek words be transliterated, that voters might have some chance of reading the word in question, even if they aren’t familiar with the Hebrew and Greek alphabets.

The Narrative of the Destruction of Sodom:

Genesis 18 begins with three travelers (the Lord and two angels—see Gen 18:1-2, 18:22, 18:33, 19:1) arriving near Abraham’s tent. Abraham proceeds to provide great hospitality to the travelers in accordance with the customs and laws held dear by the ancient Hebrews (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...). As the travelers begin to depart, Abraham shows them out and the two angels continue onward while the Lord stays behind to discuss Sodom, their next stop, with Abraham. The Lord mentions that he is going to see Sodom’s sin firsthand (18:21), and Abraham asks the Lord whether Sodom would be spared judgment for even ten righteous men within the city, and the Lord acquiesces.

In Genesis 19, the two angels, who went forth as the Lord stayed back with Abraham, enter the city of Sodom, planning to stay in the city square. Lot stops them, insisting (again following hospitality customs) they stay in his house instead. The angels agree. Before they go to sleep, the men of the city come to Lot’s door demanding the travelers be produced that the men might rape them (19:5). Lot offers instead his virgin daughters stating, “only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (19:8, emphasis mine own).

The story concludes with the angels taking Lot and his family outside the city the next day, that they might escape the destruction brought by the Lord on the cities, and send him toward the city of Zoar.

From the story itself, it is fairly obvious that the sin of Sodom was not specifically homosexual intercourse, but disregard for custom and law surrounding hospitality to travelers, who were (in Hebrew society) to be accorded everything from a portion of the tithe given for the poor to honorary status in celebrating festivities.

We can tell this because:

  1. We have two stories, both involving the same travelers and how they were treated, that are juxtaposed (a technique often used in the Hebrew scriptures to teach a moral). In the first, the travelers are shown every kindness and hospitality. In the second, the travelers are shown hospitality by Lot (who is spared), but that concern for travelers and strangers is violated by the men of the city.
  2. The Lord’s intent was to see firsthand the sin of the citizens of Sodom before deciding once and for all to destroy the city (18:21). The only sin actually seen was the city’s treatment of the travelers. The men desired to rape them, but theynever actually did so. Common sense therefore rules out homosexual intercourse as the sin of Sodom since in this final test, it did not actually happen, whereas accosting the men and threatening them did.

Other Mention of the Sin of Sodom:

The sin(s) of Sodom is mentioned specifically in an handful of places throughout the Biblical texts. They are as follows:

Luke 10/Matthew 10:

These two chapters are the two gospels’ versions of the Jesus actually sending followers out to the Jews. In Matthew, Jesus sends his twelve apostles only to Jewish towns to proclaim the gospel. They are instructed to be gracious guests anywhere they are received, but anywhere they are not welcomed, they are to shake the dust from their feet as they leave. Jesus concludes with “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

Luke 10 shows Jesus sending out seventy followers in pairs to do likewise in preparation for Christ’s own visits to towns. Verses 11 and 12 are these followers being instructed (like the apostles) to shake the dust from their feet when unwelcomed and Christ’s comment on this that “I tell you, on that day, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.”

Both of these references to Sodom are directly related to the treatment and hospitality that those whom Christ sent might receive, with the comparisons to Sodom coming only if those sent are unwelcomed. This draws direct comparison to the story of Sodom described above, but the fact that Sodom’s judgment would be more tolerable points to the gravity of the message Jesus has sent these people to proclaim. In other words, “Sodom will have it easy because they merely sinned, they did not also reject the good news.”

Ezekiel 16:

In Ezekiel, we see the following verses, which need little explanation:

48 As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

It is worth mentioning that “abomination” is merely the Hebrew wordתּ@331;עֵבָה (tow-ebah), which is another word for something sinful, and it can apply to almost any sin. (http://lexiconcordance.com...)
 
2 Peter:
 
In verses 7-10, we see discussion of Sodom and its sins. At first reading, even the NRSV seems to suggest (albeit very vaguely) that something sexual might be the problem, but when you then compare the underlying Koine Greek, we see merely a translation choice that does not necessarily indicate the same.
Verse 7: and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless

“Licentiousness” here is the Greek word O36;σP51;λγεια (aselgeia), which can mean anything from the sexually charged “licentiousness” to the very non-sexual “shameless.” There are no context clues to suggest a sexual meaning is implied. (http://lexiconcordance.com...).
 Verse 10: especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority.
 The inclusion of “authority” in this verse shows it is merely providing examples of a range of types of sin, but the “indulg[ing] their flesh in depraved lust” can just as legitimately be translated as “indulg[ing] their flesh in the lust of unclean things.” The word in question is μιασμP57;ς(miasmos), and “this does not necessarily imply anything sexual when we see its definition (see: http://lexiconcordance.com...). In fact, it is more likely that it refers to ritual cleanliness, which played a huge factor in many customs of the day regarding sin.
 
Jude 1:
 This chapter contains references which, out of context, may appear to suggest homosexual intercourse as the sin of Sodom (though it would be the only such text in the Bible to outright do so, as we’ve seen already). This comes in verse 7, which reads:
 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Though there is much debate over whether terms such as “unnatural lust,” (or its variant possibility, “went after other flesh”) means homosexuality or not*, taken in context, we see that the rather vague “they” in the verse is referring to angels from verse 6. The sexual immorality and unnatural lust referenced here, then, refers more obviously to Genesis 6:4 and the sons of God, the angels, who mated with human women to produce the Nephilim (or giants). This, more than any inter-human sexual interaction, is justly labeled “unnatural” or “other flesh.”
 
*Arguments that try to associate these terms with homosexuality tend to either rely primarily on modern notions that would not have existed in Biblical times, or they claim that the Greek word for “other” had a meaning of “other of two possible choices” rather than its actual meaning of “anything different from the usual.”
 

Other Mention of the Destruction of Sodom:

 
There is, quite honestly, little to be found here. The rest of the references to Sodom in the Bible fall into this area, and I include it only to be thorough in my treatment of Sodom within the scripture. There are at least another 15 references to Sodom in the Old and New Testaments (plus one additional in the Apocrypha for a total of 16), but each merely uses the destruction of Sodom as a metaphor, a reference, or some other means of comparison, generally as part of a deterrent. None of them includes and specific reference to what it was that Sodom did, merely that Sodom was destroyed for its sin.
 In summary, the texts show at very best an incidental relationship between homosexuality and the sin of Sodom. It is fairly plain, when taking the entirety of scripture and its references into account, that the sin of Sodom was a number of things, but primarily its treatment of travelers, who were to be placed on a similar cultural level as the poor and needy, regardless of the traveler’s actual stature in life (which makes sense when considering how dangerous travel could be thousands of years ago). The fact that the straw that broke the camel’s back (so to speak) was a desire to sexually abuse the travelers is anecdotal at best, and Lot’s own offer to give up his daughters instead shows the extent and importance that caring for strangers and travelers was supposed to have in their culture. The overall conclusion can only be that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual intercourse.
chrimill

Con

Thank you for the bible verses that you presented, they provided a good background for the debate. I would also like to request that I be able to use a Catholic RSV Bible, since I am Catholic and I own this version. If not, I will use a Protestant Bible, since I did agree to the debate terms.

You did a good job of outlining the city of Sodom, some of its sinful nature, and various references to Sodom in the New and Old Testament. I would like to elaborate on the term "sodomy" with a link here about the history of sodomy laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

And a dictionary definition of it

"Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

I would argue that the city of Sodom was a sinful city, and the main evidence shown in the story of Lot indicates that they were depraved in their desires and essentially wanted to engage in sexual relations with multiple sources. Note that they preferred Lot's male guests over his female daughter. It seems clear that they did not have a sense of sexuality as requiring a procreative purpose, i.e. sodomy. Although other practices are not explicitly mentioned, it seems clear that the people of Sodom were probably willing to have sex with men and women, and probably other sex practices that did not have a procreative end. True, some of the words in question can be difficult to translate, which may seem like it confuses the issue, but the message seems clear throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, chasteness in the New Testament, which is the fulfillment of the uncleanness principle in the Old Testament. Many of the sexual practices mentioned in the Old Testament that make one unclean are due to the fact that inhibit procreation. Spilling one's seed, having a period, just being pregnant, homosexual relations, relations with animals. In addition, sex with close relatives is prohibited, probably because the result of that pregnancy would be an abomination; i.e. birth defects.

This is the Old Testament, and we are Christians who fulfill the New Testament. We are called to a higher standard, as Jesus said "Looking at a woman lustfully is akin to adultery". Cleanness, the equivalent of being technically correct in the letter of the law, is replaced by chastity, a state of being that calls one to abstain from sexual immorality. Sodomy is basically a catch-all term for those sex acts that cannot result in procreation, of which homosexuality is clearly one of them. As for the "Sin of Sodom", it appears that their sins were many, homosexuality being one of them. The people of Sodom could be more accurately described as being "depraved" or "debauched", they had lost their way from God and thus sought to indulge themselves in ever greater levels of rebellion and unnatural behavior. As evidenced by your verse from 2 Peter:

Verse 10: especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority.

The verse from Jude you mentioned

Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

To sum up, the sin of Sodom appears to be a lack of chastity or cleanliness, homosexuality being one example of unnatural sexual behavior that fits under the umbrella of Sodom's sin, which is the basis of our idea of sodomy today. The people became so unconcerned with a sense of purpose being attached to sexual relations that they preferred men over a young virgin. Some criticize Lot for his actions here, but it is meant to show how far his penchant for hospitality went, and the fact that God is willing to reward those who will sacrifice dearly for him. Lot mentions the youth of his daughter and her virginity for two reasons, in the hopes that the men will choose her over the guests, since she has two qualities that were highly prized in Mediterranean society. The other is the moral, which is meant for our sake as readers today, the youth and virginity contrasts with a couple of random travelers, most likely sweaty and dirty from a full day of walking in the desert. These men had lost their sense of the meaning of sexual relations, which need the possibility of procreation present in order to be acceptable in the eyes of God. Of course, marriage is the other half of this equation, which rules out random sexual relations with strangers of the opposite sex that would still have the possibility of procreation.

I realize that this seems like it could be construed as being in line with the Pro-side of the argument, but I believe that since the Pro-side has the burden of proof, my duty as the Con side is to show that unnatural/homosexual relations were a significant part of the "sin of Sodom". Other sins can be implied, and most likely were present, but it seems like the capstone was a total reversal from God's intent for men and women. Note that it can probably be implied that this was "normal" in Sodom, i.e. committing depraved sexual acts, the scene with Lot is intended to show a "snapshot" of a how life was like in Sodom. Its sin was great, so great that it reached the levels witnessed by the angels. I believe that this behavior classifies as "sodomy" by today's standards, which includes homosexual and other non-procreative sexual acts. Every homosexual act is an act of sodomy, every act of sodomy is not necessarily a homosexual act.
Debate Round No. 2
ioannesmartinus

Pro

Firstly, I have no objection to my opponent relying upon the NRSV Catholic Edition, though if for some reason this is objectionable, I do not mind conceding the RSV. It is somewhat outdated, but it is still far more accurate than many of the other common translations in use today. Multiple versions of the Bible are easily accessible through http://www.biblegateway.com..., however, so it should be easy to cross-reference between the hard copy and the NRSV through that site.

Sodomy:

Whether one restricts sodomy to anal intercourse (especially homosexual intercourse) or uses the term more liberally to include bestiality and other acts matters very little, though I must say that (were it relevant) my opponent would need to establish more certainly that any non-procreative sex act would constitute sodomy beyond merely stating that it would. That is really more of a side note, however, as the definition of sodomy is not actually in contention.

Likewise, it is not in contention that the men of Sodom were willing to engage in what we know as sodomy in this specific instance with the two angels. This is obviously stated in the text.

What is in contention is whether what we know as “sodomy” today was in fact the “sin of Sodom,” whether that be the actual, final straw that the Lord witnessed or even the bulk of the total sin that brought about God’s wrath in the first place.

Ritual Purity:

I also challenge my opponent’s assertion that ritual cleanliness (generally referred to as ritual purity when describing a person rather than food) was replaced by chastity in the New Testament. Ritual Purity was more a descriptor of whether one was able to worship in the Temple (clean/pure) or not (unclean/impure). Most of these laws do not even apply to the Jews anymore because the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. (see: http://www.religiousrules.com...), and since the first ritual purity laws were given during the Exodus, they would not have had anything to do with the events leading up to the destruction of Sodom either.

Subsequently, the entire notion that chastity must somehow relate to ritual purity is incorrect, and ritual purity in general is unrelated.

Rebuttal:

Beyond those assertions and clarifications, there are some issues with the Con argument itself. While the burden of proof does come down much more heavily on Pro in this argument, my opponent’s assertions amount to, essentially, speculation. Yes, the men of Sodom were willing to violate the two travelers, but they did not actually do so. Also, we are given no specific instance of just such a violation being wantonly committed by the citizens of Sodom before this instance in scripture. The rest of the references to Sodom’s sin in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, refer to sins related to hospitality and treatment of the poor and needy (as I showed in Round 2).

My opponent has asserted that the men’s attempt to commit what we know as “sodomy” was the capstone, and is therefore of utmost importance in determining the “sin of Sodom,” but Con will need to address the overwhelmingly more likely scenario from the text that it was merely that the men were trying to mistreat the travelers in any way. From the context, Hebrew law and custom, and other Biblical references, the only logical conclusion is to say that any mistreatment of the guests would have netted the same result, whether it be an attempted beating, stoning, or theft.

Essentially, my opponent will need to address at the very least thesetwo facts for his position thus far to hold up:

For anal or oral intercourse to have amounted to the “sin of Sodom,”

(1)They would have had to occur in this instance. They did not occur though; only the threat occurred. Tangentially related to this, I have not been able to find anything suggesting that the threat of committing a sin was itself a sin in ancient Hebrew law, regardless of what our views on that might be post-Christ.

(2)They would have had to be a significant portion of the sin that led up to God’s (for lack of a better word) audit of Sodom prior to its destruction. There are no such descriptions of this in the Bible that I can find, despite numerous examples (cited in Round 2) of sins for which Sodom was judged.

Again, I thank my opponent for participating!

chrimill

Con

For anal or oral intercourse to have amounted to the "sin of Sodom,"

(1)They would have had to occur in this instance. They did not occur though; only the threat occurred. Tangentially related to this, I have not been able to find anything suggesting that the threat of committing a sin was itself a sin in ancient Hebrew law, regardless of what our views on that might be post-Christ.

The city had already been judged by God, Abraham had tried to bargain with God to spare the city if he could find just 10 righteous people in the whole city; the angels were sent to destroy the city not "investigate". True, it is not explicitly said here why the Sodom was "wicked", but I don't think that the men of Sodom just decided to take up "sodomy" on that particular night. Neither you nor I can prove in an absolute manner what the "sin of Sodom" was, we can both only speculate. Note, if you had said "homosexuality" instead of "sodomy" your argument would be much simpler to prove, since you only have to rule out one specific act. If you had said the "sin of Sodom" was not exclusively sodomy you would also be correct. I would not have ventured to take up this argument in either of those cases, but you chose an absolute statement that can be thought of logically in this manner:

"Sin of Sodom" = different possible sins, but does not include "sodomy"

If there is a reasonable chance that "sodomy" is a significant part of the "Sin of Sodom" this statement is false and your argument is negated.

(2)They would have had to be a significant portion of the sin that led up to God"s (for lack of a better word) audit of Sodom prior to its destruction. There are no such descriptions of this in the Bible that I can find, despite numerous examples (cited in Round 2) of sins for which Sodom was judged.

You use the term "incidental", meaning it was a very minor part, to describe the role "sodomy" played. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the idea that if the men of Sodom had been more pleasant to travelers, but still committed rampant sodomy, then the city of Sodom would not have had enough "sin" to warrant destruction. You say that it is just "word choice" that gives a sexual connotation to the "sin of Sodom" in the New Testament, but it seems pretty clear that a connotation of "unnatural" is warranted, and the reader can use discretion in this manner to determine if "sodomy" is sufficiently "unnatural". The New Testament speaks in this manner to a great extent, granted they are different chapters, but they still give an idea of what the writers of the epistles were talking about when they think of unnatural acts.

Therefore, since it appears to be split as to the veracity of "sodomy" not being part of the "sin of Sodom" it would be false to conclude that it is definitely not the "sin of Sodom". Pro has advanced many sound arguments for overall greed and lust for personal wealth being the "sin of Sodom", but this does still not preclude sodomy from being a significant part of the equation. Sodomy was a significant part of Sodom's sin, not a misnomer that resulted from misinterpretation of the Bible itself.
Debate Round No. 3
ioannesmartinus

Pro

The city had already been judged by God, Abraham had tried to bargain with God to spare the city if he could find just 10 righteous people in the whole city; the angels were sent to destroy the city not ‘investigate’.

My opponent is simply incorrect here, as shown in Genesis 18:20-21, especially 21:

20 Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! 21 I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.”

True, it is not explicitly said here why the [sic] Sodom was "wicked", but I don't think that the men of Sodom just decided to take up "sodomy" on that particular night.

This is speculation though. There needs to be some support to this other than my opponent’s mere disbelief. Beyond that, there must be something to show it was more than incidental to these events in the text if it is truly so obvious and important.

Neither you nor I can prove in an absolute manner what the "sin of Sodom" was, we can both only speculate.

I believe that I have fairly conclusively shown the “sin of Sodom” to be something or some things other than sodomy, especially in light of Ezekiel 16:49:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Note, if you had said "homosexuality" instead of "sodomy" your argument would be much simpler to prove [. . .] If there is a reasonable chance that "sodomy" is a significant part of the "Sin of Sodom" this statement is false and your argument is negated.

This statement is incorrect. I used the definite article rather than the indefinite article (“the” rather than “a”) before “sin of Sodom,” thus implying (by its definite nature) either exclusivity or at least majority proportion of sodomy as the “sin of Sodom.” In light of the scriptures referenced and the analysis of them (as well as my opponent’s lack of much in way of the same for the Con case), this seems to be something of a straw man.

You use the term "incidental", meaning it was a very minor part, to describe the role "sodomy" played.

Firstly, I wish to append “if it played a role at all,” as this was chronologically prior to Levitical law being given, which codified many behaviours as sinful. Secondly, I used "incidental" to mean that the citizens could have mistreated the travelers in a way that was itself sinful or that was not sinful (for example, beating a man was not a sin, but it did require payment be made to the victim as reparation). The status of their mistreatment as sinful or not sinful had nothing to do with the situation.

Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the idea that if the men of Sodom had been more pleasant to travelers, but still committed rampant sodomy, then the city of Sodom would not have had enough "sin" to warrant destruction.

Actually, “might not” have been destroyed is more likely. As Levitical law was not yet in place, this is a reasonable point on which to hold back from making a definitive statement. Considering the evolving nature of sin as God’s relationship with the Hebrews—and later humanity as a whole—changed (for example, sleeping with one’s siblings was originally not sin—unless you make the non-scriptural and non-traditional assertion that God created more people than simply Adam and Eve—but by the time of Levitical law, incest was a sin. Likewise, eating shellfish was a sin under Levitical law, but not in the New Testament. Sin changed as God's relationship with humanity changed.)

At this point, I also wish to pre-empt the possible assertion that Levitical law was in fact in place prior to it being codified and given to the Hebrews. There is nothing suggesting this in the Old Testament (if the claim is to be made, it would need to be properly cited), and God is shown to be giving laws to the Hebrews on several occassions through Moses. None of this would have been necessary had these laws already been in place.

You say that it is just "word choice" that gives a sexual connotation to the "sin of Sodom" in the New Testament, but it seems pretty clear that a connotation of "unnatural" is warranted, and the reader can use discretion in this manner to determine if "sodomy" is sufficiently "unnatural".

It is academically and theologically dishonest to use modern English word connotations in the interpretation of a translation taken from two-thousand year-old (and older) texts that come from different cultural perspectives. Thus, the statement that "it seems pretty clear" is simply wrong. The reader can indeed use discretion, but that discretion needs to include the type of perspectives I have attempted to offer. My opponent needs to provide evidence to back this assertion up from the point of view of the original languages, not merely a translation, especially considering how much of the Con argument would rely on such an interpretation.

The New Testament speaks in this manner to a great extent, granted they are different chapters, but they still give an idea of what the writers of the epistles were talking about when they think of unnatural acts.

I would that my opponent had provided these examples, that I might have addressed them (likely being texts from Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude, all of which rely on tenuous-at-best translations of the Greek words “αρσενοκο^3;της,” [arsenokoites—which is a word literally created by the Apostle Paul; there is no earlier use of the term in existence], “μαλακa2;ς,” [malakos—meaning literally soft, but not the derivative malakia, which is effeminacy], and occasionally the outright mistranslation, no vagueness at all, of “πa2;ρνος,” [pornos—meaning fornicator, generally compared specifically to an adulterer]). These were not provided, however, so this is something of a moot point.

Con has, thus far, asserted that sodomy could very well have been part of the “sin of Sodom,” but has provided no verses that show this to be the case, nor has Con addressed directly (at least not effectively) any of the issues raised with the vaguer verses that have already been mentioned. My opponent asserts that I have shown nothing definitively, yet nothing but conjecture, opinion, and some false logic has been offered as a counter.

Surely it is reasonable to conclude that if sodomy were indeed a significant portion of the “sin of Sodom” (otherwise, I point out again, I would have said “a ‘sin of Sodom’”), it would have been mentioned as both specifically having happened and it would have been referenced in one of the many verses that harken back to the story of Sodom later in the Bible. This is simply not the case.

My opponent could very well make the same arguments thus far made on the Con side by replacing “sodomy” with “drinking orange Gatorade.” Merely because the texts in the Bible do not mention drinking orange Gatorade outright does not mean that it is reasonable to assume it could have been a portion—let alone a significant portion—of the sin of Sodom.

chrimill

Con

chrimill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ioannesmartinus 3 years ago
ioannesmartinus
I wasn't aware there had to be points to the debates here, though one point is that this particular topic often has a great impact on Christian views of male homosexuality.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Why does this matter (the debate)?
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
@themohawkninja @ioannesmartinus
It's an error/bug/etc that's been on the site for a very long time.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Looking forward to reading this one.
Posted by ioannesmartinus 3 years ago
ioannesmartinus
No idea. I just noticed that . . . strange . . . .
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
This is totally irrelevant to the debate, but why are the buttons for your debates' "comments", "updated x hours ago", and "challenge period" formatted differently than everyone elses?
No votes have been placed for this debate.