Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Model
2.1 Key Terms
2.2 Resolution/BoP
2.3 Con’s Case
3. Constructive Arguments/Analyses
3.1 Sodom and Gommorah
3.2 David and Jonathan
4. Conclusions
5. Citations
1. Introduction
TW: Mentions/threats of rape and (allegedly) homophobic content in the Bible.
This one’s going to be a bit short, since I am rushing this due to lack of time. My procrastination seems to be becoming a theme, haha.
This debate is with regards to the condemnation or lack thereof of homosexuality/homosexual acts between homosexuals in the bible. Throughout history, bible passages have routinely been mistranslated or taken out of context in order to justify bigotry, and today I will aim to prove how a few examples of verses commonly used to condemn homosexuality do not actually support that interpretation.
In order to save time on rebuking every possible verse used to condemn homosexuality, I will be using the story of David and Jonathan in order to give substantive evidence to my case. In my arguments/analyses, I will also be looking at the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, a story that has been taken out of context to a truly egregious degree.
2. Model
As pro failed to model the resolution, I will go ahead and do so instead.
2.1 Key Terms
The Bible: A book composed of only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament
Homosexuality: In this context can refer to a person who is attracted to the same gender that they are, romantic/sexual relationships between homosexuals of the same gender, romantic/sexual acts between two homosexuals of the same gender, etc…
Condemned: Stated or implied to be a sin, and/or weakening your relationship with the Christian deity, and/or implying future punishment, and/or stated or implied to be immoral/very bad.
2.2 Resolution/BoP
Pro must prove the bible likely/on balance condemns homosexuality whereas con only needs to prove it is unlikely the bible condemns homosexuality and/or that, on balance, there is no good reason to believe it does. Con doesn't have to prove the counterfactual (i.e. The bible supports homosexuality/doesn't condemn it). The reasoning for this is fairly self-evident, as things are only considered sins in Christianity if there is good reason to believe it is. If there is no good reason to believe that it is, defending it or finding a biblical basis for it is not necessary for it to not be considered a sin. Things that aren't sins don't need to 'prove' that they aren't sins and we can reasonably conclude it is not condemned.
In the spirit of this debate and as is defined by the description of the debate, any argument made with regards to the condemnation of homosexuality can not apply to heterosexuality as well (i.e. a condemnation of all human sexuality or of actions not exclusive to homosexuality are not applicable).
2.3 Con’s Case
In this speech, con’s constructive arguments/analyses will be the following:
- Sodom and Gomorrah
- Sodom and Gomorrah is a tale of what scholars refer to as ‘inhospitality’ and I refer to as ‘attempted mob-rape of angels’. The connection that this refers to homosexuality in any way is insane.
- The interpretation that this story is against homosexuality is one that (supposedly) only began in the 3rd century CE.
- David and Jonathan
- The story of David and Jonathan is a story of two men who “loved one another more than any woman” that was blessed by the Christian deity.
- Intimate acts occurred between David and Jonathan and there is reason to believe it does not refer to a platonic relationship.
3. Constructive Arguments/Analyses
3.1 Sodom and Gomorrah
“...all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” -Genesis 19:4-5, NIV Bible[1]
“”Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.” -Genesis 19:9, NIV Bible[1]
These two quotes show one thing very clearly: the city of Sodom surrounded the house, attempted to force their way in to the house where two angels are, seem to be fully aware of the bad nature of their actions (hence the “We’ll treat you worse than them”), and specifically mentioned wanting to have sex with the men.
This story contains many sins that are much more prevalent, obvious, and serious in this story. Such as:
- Rape
- Breaking-and-Entering
- Assault
- Lack of faith in the Christian deity
- Harming angels
- Refusing to acknowledge the Christian deity as the ultimate ‘judge’, per se
To look at all of this evidence and then deduce that this is not a condemnation of despicable, potentially lethal violence against two angels or a condemnation of a lack of trust in them to be ‘judges’, but rather a condemnation of homosexuality, is absurd. You can look through the entirety of Genesis 19, and you will find no part of it that specifically finds issue with the fact the attempted rapists were men and the angels were men.
The closest thing you will find in this story to what is even barely an allusion to homosexuality is when the man who took the angels into his home offered up his virgin daughters to the mob. If you stretch it enough, and I mean really stretch it, you might be able to consider this interpretation. However, it seems to me to be self evident that, in the face of all of the other much more glaring issues with the story in question, in addition to the fact that the angels were not only just angels, but also his houseguests in an era where daughters were treated as a commodity to be sold.
Finally, the interpretation that this story was against homosexuality only began in the 3rd century CE by Phil of Alexandria[2]. For all of these reasons, it seems clear to con that this story clearly does not condemn homosexuality.
3.2 David and Jonathan
David and Jonathan is a story that shows clearly, at the very least the bible does not condemn homoromanticism/homosociality. David and Jonathan were said to love each other more than they loved any other woman, and the book of 2 Samuel clearly describes them kissing one another[3].
One may recall that Hebrew has multiple words for love, each referring to a different kind of love (storge, philia, eros, and agape meaning empathetic love, a bond between friends, romantic love, and unconditional, deity-like love respectively[4]). If we look at the Hebrew, we should be able to see, based on what the words used to describe their love for one another are used for in other verses, what kind of love it was referring to.
What we find when looking at the hebrew is that their love is described with ‘ahabah’. The word ahabah is also used to describe the love of one’s wife specifically in a sexual context in Proverbs 5:19[5]. Throughout 1 Samuel 16-23, it is consistently mentioned that the Christian deity protects David from the murder attempts of Saul is ‘with’ David, showing clearly that he is not only far from a condemned person, but rather, a blessed person.
While scholars may choose to point to the distinct lack of sexual intimacy in the relationship between David and Jonathan despite the fact such intimacy is mentioned in detail with their heterosexual relationships or how both David and Jonathan were heterosexually married, those who take a homophobic interpretation of this passage must reckon with the meaning of the original Hebrew clearly disagreeing with them. (More info on this story can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan#Homoeroticism )
What we can conclude from this is, not only is there good evidence to believe there’s a story of two men who loved each other both romantically and sexually in the bible, but as well that it was not a sin in the slightest.
4. Conclusions
In my arguments and analyses I have given one example of a verse that is commonly used to condemn homosexuality and proven why it definitely doesn’t do anything of the sort. Bible verses and chapters have been taken out of context and mistranslated egregiously for hundreds of years and continue to be today. I could go through every example and show why every verse cited by homophobes doesn’t prove the bible condemns homosexuality, for now, I believe this more than suffices my burden of proof and gives a sufficient example to prove my claims.
I have also shown the story of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, which clearly shows that the bible not only fails to condemn homosexuality in this instance, but actually blesses it and supports it in the same way as any heterosexual relationship. I believe that anyone who would like to disagree with my conclusion would face significant difficulty facing the facts I have presented today.
I apologize that I wasn’t able to create something more in depth, but if my other debate on the matter ends up not being a forfeit, then I will happily go through most if not all verses on the matter one by one.
For all these reasons, so proud to oppose.
5. Citations
- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=NIV
- https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/09/genesis-19/
- https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=nasb:1%20Samuel%2020:41
- https://colors-newyork.com/what-are-the-different-words-for-love-in-hebrew/
- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+5&version=KJV
You would be correct that there have historically been Bible commentators that have not understood, or have even misunderstood, the Hebrew language.
It seems today though that most critics of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality do not actually speak Hebrew, nor are they even familiar with the language themselves. This is important to remember when examining critical sources. It's also important to consider there is a consistent condemnation of homosexuality from rabbinic commentators (fluent Hebrew speakers) throughout history. It might be worthwhile to examine some of those sources as well. Just some food for thought.
Yes, it is a language that has continued to exist since the days of the old testament, but I have been led to believe at least that it was largely displaced in favour of other languages as Israel came to be ruled by other empires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Displacement_by_Aramaic ). My presumption was that this meant that Hebrew was a language that would have been difficult to understand given how rare I thought that it was, but I've come to find that I was incorrect when looking further into it.
I felt that at the very least biblical translators didn't understand the language themselves, seeing how obviously and often they failed to properly translate things. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but some people would say it is (https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bibles-translations/truth-about-bible-translations.htm and https://www.christianforums.com/threads/nwt-translators-did-not-know-biblical-hebrew-or-greek.8010766/ ). While nonetheless I would stand by saying Hebrew is a language that in large part has aspects that can not be translated into English without understanding of said Hebrew, I shouldn't have simply ran with what I had been told by others. My mistake.
You're absolutely right. My claim is not that it wasn't mentioned many times, but only that a specific word or phrase appeared more than once and that what the claim meant when it appeared can tell us what it means when we look at it this time. I apologize if what I said came off otherwise or I said otherwise. I stand by what I said about the 6 clobber passages allegedly against homosexuality.
"Hebrew is an incredibly complicated language, one that is very different from English, and one we did not fully understand until recently if we have even at all."
Hebrew is a language that has continued until today. Are you saying that Jewish people have only begun to understand their own language recently?
I fail to see how the number of times the bible referring to an activity constitutes whether it is sinful or not. If there was a law that prohibited something, it doesn't matter how many times that law was made. If the law was made merely once, it was enough to be prohibited. If the bible mentions 1 time where an activity is banned, then it's banned according to the Bible. There are other things that the Bible prohibits that don't come up that frequently yet they are still banned. I think "Thou shall not kill" is only mentioned in the Bible once, and God breaks that commandment repeatedly. The bible mentions disapproving of homosexuality 6 to 7 times, and unless all of these verses were mistranslated into something else, it is safe to say the Bible disapproves of homosexuality.
Well, as I said, the verse more accurately says "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Hebrew is an incredibly complicated language, one that is very different from English, and one we did not fully understand until recently if we have even at all. Translators took liberties to suit their own agendas, beliefs, and desire for the bible to be actually legible to English speakers. The bible only began to be translated into English during the age of reformation when the Catholic Church had already propagated the belief that homosexuality was a sin. With all these factors in mind, it doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me that only 6 verses in the bible, a book with thousands and thousands of verses, even vaguely allude to condemnation of homosexuality.
I respect your faith and the lack thereof, and in no way do I mean to come off as though I am accusing you of hating LGBTQ+ people. Nonetheless, I don't believe that religion, nor Christianity specifically, is irreconcilable with the LGBTQ+ community.
"Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest"
If this was the case, then the verse would say something along the lines of, "You shall not lie with your sister as with your wife, for it is an abomination." But I think the verse was referring to homosexuality. I fail to see how a Bible verse that arguably refers to homosexuality could instead be referring to incest. The bible mentions homosexuality enough times in a negative light for it to be sinful, unless every single translation is out of context, which I highly doubt.
Granted, I don't hate gays, just like I don't hate atheists. An action being sinful does not mean it's practice is to be abolished, but if something violates the word of God, it's a sin.
This is one reason why I'm proud to be an atheist.
If you'd like a more in-depth explanation or an analysis of any other verses, I'd be happy to discuss them through dm! I just don't want to end up clogging the comments section as I did with the debate between Wylted and I, haha.
Leviticus 18:22 is possibly the most cited bible verse that is supposedly against homosexuality, second only to perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah, and while it has the problem of being taken out of context as well, it has a problem of dishonest translation much more so. Hebrew is a VERY complex language relative to English, and it's one that we have only very recently, if we have at all, begun to fully understand. Let's go through each problem with the homophobic interpretation
Problem #1: The phrase that is translated to 'as one lies with' is seen in 5 other verses, and 4 of those times it refers to a place and literally in relation to lying there. A woman's bed was considered sacred in the time Leviticus was written as far as I know.
Problem #2: English translators have taken significant liberties in translating the verse so that it sounds appropriate for an English audience, which then worsens efforts at interpretation significantly. The verse, translated directly, would be translated by some to say "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Obviously that doesn't make any sense to English speakers, but we can only understand what it means if we look at what it actually is, not what would be most convenient to read.
Problem #3: The word 'lyings' only appears twice in the bible, once in Leviticus 18:22 and second in Genesis 49:4. What does Genesis 49:4 condemn? Incest.
Problem #4: Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest, basically going down the list of "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your sister. etc..." When combined with the understanding that 'lyings' in Genesis 49:4 refers to incest, homosexuality is only one of the many possible interpretations one could have of this story, which I believe that, when combined with the stories of David and Jonathan and the other facts I mentioned, is the least likely of them all.
You can find all this info here: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/#_ednref8 . I would've loved to use more direct citations, but unfortunately the most important one is paywalled, so this is the best I can do.
What about Lectiviticus 18:22? Sorry I can’t spell, but I think you know what I’m referring too.
Too bad this guy didn't bring it.
Debate has been remade if either of you are interested in keeping up with it!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3179-remake-thbt-the-bible-condemns-homosexuality
It's possible. We'll have to see.
I have a feeling your opponent may not come back.
regarding #26... I think if that is the case, you have already won.
Don't worry. I have no problem making it again if that's the case, haha.
Hopefully theogdebater isn’t going to ff this debate.
Well, it's entirely possible that, over the years, the words in the bible were changed as it was copied and written down, but we can't really have a debate around what we don't know. We have no way of knowing what the bible did say when all of the books within it were made, but we can at least look at the Hebrew that we do have and ask if the translation is correct/reasonable or not.
I understand. I'll change the resolution to fit that, since I see where you're coming from.
There is no original copy of "the Bible" because the Bible is a collection of historical documents written at different times. This means you would have to substantiate your skepticism for each individual book where homosexuality is mentioned based on the manuscript evidence.
My thought was just that it shifted the resolution a little away from the desired topic, what the bible says, not, what the bible is likely to say.
The problem is that there are many copies of the bible that we possibly don't have the original anymore. Some versions condemns homosexuality and others don't. We could just resort that to mistranslation but they still do.
So, do they even count as the bible?
You're welcome
I understand my mistake now. All my research of the bible has been very fragmented, not going from start to finish as I perhaps should have and rather going to verses that relate to specific problems or issues. Stupid of a mistake as it may be, I thought that all 27 books were just sections of the 4 gospels, eheh. I'll update the description accordingly. Thank you for your help!
You may be thinking of later documents such as the gospel of Thomas, which you would be correct in saying are not part of the Bible. However, if you go to the store and buy a copy of "the Bible," it will not end at the book of John. It will end at the book of Revelation - the 27th book. Note that a gospel is a type of book in the Bible.
It is your debate though, so set whatever rules you like. However, if you do not allow 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy into the debate, you cannot fully or adequately address the question of whether "the Bible" considers homosexuality a sin.
I don't remember the exact chapter/verse, but I believe I'm thinking of the same thing you're thinking. There is a story that condemns sex between two men, but I am led to believe that, within the context, it was because people (who were following a cult and engaged in some sort of gathering) were so drunk and/or depraved that they were having homosexual sex while being heterosexual themselves.
I think that mistranslations are going to be ~fun~ in this debate, haha. It's too easy to forget about the Hebrew.
I am aware that there are many gospels that existed around the time the time the new testament was made, (I believe), but I was always under the impression they weren't considered to be a part of the bible. Thanks for letting me know about the old testament as well, since I wasn't aware of that much.
As much as I would like to, my knowledge only ends beyond those 4 gospels, so I can't have a debate about anything more than that while still being confident in my position or my ability to argue for it. I'm also led to believe those 4 gospels were chosen because they were the most reflective of the opinions of their saviour, made by those closest to him, and made soonest after his death.
Another seemingly capable theist...
I believe Bible condones male-on-male lust, which is the equivalent of “immoral sex”, and not the entirety of homosexuality. I think that is mistranslated.
Nevertheless, we should have a good discussion over what the Bible actually is.
interested?
There are 27 books in the New Testament, the first four books being the four gospels you referred to.
Your best bet would be to refer to the Bible as the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. As a disclaimer, Catholics try to throw in a few extra Old Testament books, but you can cross that bridge if you get there.
That's true, and I will add that to the description right now. I thought that the bible was commonly accepted to be only those 4 gospels and the old testament? Forgive me if I am wrong.
You might want to clarify exactly what you mean by the Bible in the debate description to avoid confusion or semantics. Your last comment seems to limit the biblical New Testament to Matthew, Mark, Like, and John.
Thanks!
Oh, and also I forgot to mention this part. While yes, there are many gospels that were not included in the new testament, those wouldn't be applicable as they aren't included in the bible. Only the old testament and the 4 gospels of the new testament are allowed.
Good luck!
I personally believe it doesn't. The word 'homosexuality' didn't appear once in the bible, yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to in order for it to condemn homosexuality. I'm very confident in my arguments and I want to see if my confidence is justified.
I see where you're coming from. My initial thoughts were relating to if something may, by some interpretations, condemn homosexuality, I wanted to leave a bit of wiggle room so that way it wasn't necessary to prove it without a doubt. I don't see it causing much of an issue if, as you say, it does or it does not, since it would fall under the likely or unlikely camp nonetheless, but if you would prefer that change to the resolution, I can do that. I'm curious for your thoughts.
People argue a 'lot about the 2nd Amendment in America.
Various meanings in fiction books.
Or far the viability or righteousness of different political systems.
I suppose the importance/difference of saying what something 'be, or what something 'might be.
Is that if self practicing, one only needs 'reasonable certainty.
But in subjugating or forcing the cooperation of others, one needs 'certainty.
From what I know the word homosexuality doesn't pop up in it once though there are many stories that were taken out or edited meaning your opponent could find some story from the original bible that mentions it but I don't know even then if it condemns homosexuality.
But it doesn't make much sense to have a debate about what the bible likely says. It either says or it doesn't say once you look at the text.
Many different denominations pop up though.
Whether in religion, politics, or philosophy,
Because different people have different interpretations.
Difficult to say something 'does or doesn't, sometimes?
You should take "likely" out of the resolution. Either it does or it doesn't, really.