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

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 It is somewhat outdated, but it is still far more accurate than many of the other common translations in use today.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.