The Instigator
Imagination
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Is the Bible Sexist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Imagination
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,156 times Debate No: 28865
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (6)

 

Imagination

Pro

TOPIC: Is the Bible Sexist?

PRO: I will be arguing that the Bible discriminates against women and describes them as inferior to men.

CON: My opponent will be expected to prove that the Bible does not discriminate against women.

_____________________________________

These are the terms of conduct expected in this debate. If you do not wish to and/or do not intend to follow them please refrain from participating. Thank you.

EVIDENCE: Opinions based on faith ("It's true because I think/believe it is") will not be accepted. Both sides are expected to provide valid evidence supporting their hypotheses while legitimately responding to the other party's evidence, and furthermore, if they disagree, to produce evidence supporting their counter-argument as well. "Valid" evidence in this context is any evidence that has not or cannot be scientifically, legally, logically or empirically disproven.

SCOPE: Religion and sexism are huge topics. By participating in this debate both parties agree to make an effort not to extend arguments outside of the debate topic. Arguments that do so need not be responded to in order to save time and space and keep the debate relevant. In the same vein, please let's not resort to semantics.

SOURCES: Unless you want your source ridiculed, and in an effort to keep the debate fair, please choose valid sources of information/evidence that both parties have access to. Sites such as Wikipedia that anyone can edit, and personal, subjective remarks made by bloggers / YouTube celebrities, etc., do not meet these criteria unless they draw evidence from sources that do. For Bible quotes please provide a http://www.biblegateway.com... link. We will be using the New International Version Bible for the most up-to-date translations.

COURTEOUS: Avoid swearing/name-calling please. Let's keep this mature.

_____________________________________

The debate is designed to follow this structure~

| ROUND I |
- State POV (Pro/Con)
- Agree to terms of conduct specified in this post
- DO NOT yet make arguments beyond opinion summary

| ROUND II |
- Provide summary of general arguments
- Provide evidence for general arguments
- DO NOT yet respond to opponent's arguments


| ROUND III |
- Respond to general arguments of opposing party
- Provide evidence for counter-arguments
- Free to provide fresh arguments

| ROUND IV |
- Respond to & make arguments
- Provide evidence
- Free to provide fresh arguments
- After this round, no new arguments accepted, so start wrapping it up...

| ROUND V |
- NO NEW arguments accepted
- Respond to any argument that has not previously been mutually recognized as proven to be true/false
- Don't bring back a counter-argument that both sides agree has been previously disproven
- Make closing argument / final statement
- Provide evidence
- This is the structure of the final round should a previous round be designated as such due to an unforeseen brevity in the debate.

_____________________________________


{ POINT OF VIEW }

As Pro/Yes to the topic: "Is the Bible Sexist?" I will be arguing that the Bible discriminates against women and describes them as inferior to men.

I believe that the Bible emphatically states on many occasions that women are expected to be subservient to men and have comparatively limited freedom of speech and action. Furthermore, I believe that the Bible endorses the view that women are more sinful than men, and should be punished more harshly for the same crimes, while trivializing hate crimes against women such as domestic violence and rape.

As such, I consider the Bible to be extremely sexist – New and Old Testament alike.

I look forward to an educated opposing opinion.

GarretKadeDupre

Con

{ POINT OF VIEW }

As Con/No to the topic: "Is the Bible Sexist?" I will be arguing that the Bible does not describe women as inferior to men, and Pro's arguments will likely be taking advantage of quotes taken out of context. I believe the Bible is not sexist. I hold this to apply to both the New and Old Testament alike.

I agree to the terms of conduct specified by Pro, and look forward to his opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Imagination

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting the debate!


I'd like to clarify the definition of sexism in this context: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination against women because of their gender. Women being judged more harshly for the same crime a man did is sexism. Women being paid less than men are for the same jobs is sexism. Women being objectified – whether as a sex object or a valuable ware or nothing but a baby-maker – is sexism. There are a lot of situations where sexism rears its ugly head, but when undecided, the defining point is that whoever says or does the sexist thing is not acting in consideration of women as equal to men in human dignity.

The time period the Bible was written in was FULL of sexism, and it would continue to permeate the Roman and West European cultures that Christianity continued to influence. This does not in itself mean the Bible is sexist, but when considering context, the likelihood that its authors were unbiased towards women is … well, very slim. Which is probably why they made their protagonists everywhere male, from God to Adam to Jesus to Noah to Moses to Joseph.


{ I: GENESIS }

This is an obvious argument. There are four things in Genesis that portray women as distinctly inferior to men.


1. Eve is created out of Adam's rib
Gen. 2:21-22. Eve is the mother of all humans after her – but Adam was the mother of Eve. The passage describes women as pale replicas of men.

2. God considers Eve Adam's "helper"
Rather than being a creation in its own right, in Genesis 2:18-20, Eve is made to be a "suitable helper" of Adam. If that isn't insinuating that God created women to be subservient to men I don't know what is.

3. Eve is most easily persuaded by the snake
The WOMAN is to blame for the sin of them both. Apparently it's EVE'S responsibility what Adam decides to put in his mouth.

http://figurativecomics.wordpress.com...

4. God declares the woman's punishment for sin is subservience
In 3:16, God declares: "Your desire will be for your husband / And he will rule over you", thereby giving women an inherently misogynistic status in life.


The Founding Fathers themselves said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." When women gained suffrage rights in 1920, this was extended to all humans regardless of gender. Our modern understanding of sexism is seeing women as lower in rank, performance, intelligence, quality or equality than men because of their gender.

By making Eve a byproduct of man, she is only indirectly made by God and owes her creation to Adam as well. By creating her in order to serve Adam, the very purpose of her life requires her to prioritize the needs of males above her own interests, which is exacerbated in the highly disturbing Point 4. Through Point 3, the WOMAN becomes the vessel and instrument of the snake's evil, shifting blame and responsibility of the sin from the deceptive snake to the deceived Eve.

There can be no question that Genesis is sexist, and that this mindset is deeply entrenched throughout the Old Testament. But what of examples in the New Testament? There are quite a few.


{ II: CORINTHIANS }

Not only does the Corinthian chapter of the New Testament carry on Old Testament sexism, it endorses and emphasizes the prejudices within and the restrictions on female freedom.


5. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Cor. 11:7-9. Because there is no SCIENTIFIC proof that either Adam or Eve ever existed, they must be written off as a figurative story, a story devised by men to distract from the feminine creative power. Denying women the comparison to God makes them inferior to men, who were supposedly made in God's image.


{ III: TIMOTHY }

Furthermore, ALL of Jesus's apostles were men, men who held and taught highly sexist views, most of all surrounding the woman's ability, even permission, to teach God's word, insulting both her intelligence and claiming she ought not have the same career opportunities as men.


6. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Tim. 2:11-12. This dramatically restricts women's right to free speech. It not only discourages them not to stand up for themselves – it literally does not PERMIT them to!

7. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Tim. 2:13-15. So yes, because of one mistake your predecessor thousands of years ago made, you will NEVER have equal rights or equal human dignity because you are a woman (even though men's predecessor made the same mistake). But don't worry! Make a lot of babies and conform to expectations and you WON'T go to Hell!


{ IV: CONCLUSION }

Both the New and Old Testament are extremely sexist. These are just a few of the examples throughout hundreds of pages – I do hope they will suffice. It is painful for me to read the discrimination preached in the name of a supposedly all-equally-loving God.

MANIFESTATIONS OF SEXISM

[ a ] - consideridering women unfit to hold the same status as men
[ b ] - not permitting women to have the same career opportunities as men
[ c ] - expecting women to prioritize men's needs above their own
[ d ] - restricting a woman's free speech
[ e ] - objectifying women
[ f ] - punishing/blaming women more harshly than men for the same sin
[ g ] - considering women inferior to men in any way

…on basis of gender.

SEXISM IN THE BIBLE -- matching each quote with the most obvious manifestations of sexism

1. g
2. a, b, c, g
3. f, g
4. a, b, c, f, g
5. a, g
6. c, d, g
7. e, f, g

It is quite clear. The Bible considers women inferior to men on basis of gender.


The Bible is sexist.


GarretKadeDupre

Con

Thank you for your opening arguments. As per the rules you laid out, I will now present my opening arguments and supporting evidence, without refuting your's.

The bible is not sexist because males and females are treated as equal, but given different roles. Males are given certain roles while females are given different ones. I don't think the roles of men need to be highlighted, as Pro will desperately be trying to do that himself. I will focus on the roles of women in the Bible.

God created both man and woman equally:

"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." [1]

As one man and one woman were created equally, so was there only one man and one woman who were literally full of God's grace, and the woman actually came first! This woman was Mary, the Virgin Mother of God. An angel appeared to her and told her she was full of God's grace, [7] literally. [8] The only other person in the entire Bible described this way is Jesus, who was God himself. [9]

In both spiritual and political life, women had leadership roles.

Miriam, Aaron's sister, was a prophet. [2] So was Anna, the daughter of Penuel, [3] Huldah, the wife of Shallum, [4] and Noadiah, [5] just to name a few.

Deborah, the wife of Lappidoth, was not only another prophetess, but a judge and leader of Israel. In the Book of Judges, she displays more courage than the men under her guidance. She instructed Barak to lead his army up to Mount Tabor, where she would coerce the evil army of Sisera so Barak and his men could defeat them. However, in a display of cowardice on a man's part, Barak refused to go unless Deborah went with him. In response to this disobedience, Deborah told him: "Certainly I will go with you, but because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman." [6] Deborah is one example of a woman in the Bible with tremendous spiritual, political, and social power. She was also married.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.

[1] Genesis 1:27
[2] Exodus 15:20
[3] Luke 2:36
[4] 2 Kings 22:14
[5] Nehemiah 6:14
[6] Judges 4:4-10
[7] Luke 1:28
[8] http://www.philvaz.com...
[9] John 1:14
Debate Round No. 2
Imagination

Pro

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT I: ROLES }

The bible is not sexist because males and females are treated as equal, but given different roles.

Separate but equal? Never heard that one before. The fact remains, withholding rights from women on basis of gender, rights that are granted to men, is unequal and sexist. You name Deborah, a leader and judge. Countless other men in the Bible were leaders and judges. How is this a "different" role? And don't get me started on the prophet "role". That, too, was far from exclusive for women. Thus, 100% of the spiritual/political roles Con mentioned were in fact dominated by males, with a few women partaking in them. Many other roles and rights -- teaching/preaching, for instance, the right to stay single without being scorned and jobless, the right to education, the right to choose whom to marry -- were given in abundance to men and entirely denied women. The same situation could be observed in America in the '50s. Domestic work and laboring in the fields is not appreciated as much as service in battle, politics, and spiritual leadership -- an area that women are not even permitted to partake in to this day in traditional churches.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT II: EQUAL CREATION }

God created both man and woman equally: "So God created mankind in his own image, / in the image of God he created them; / male and female he created them."

That's Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, Adam's superiority over Eve is abundantly proven, and later Jesus's apostles justify the subjugation of women by Eve's sinning. "We all came from Eve – and Eve came from Adam." No, Adam and Eve were not created equally. Adam was forged by God's own hands; Eve the "Helper" was made from Adam's rib.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT III: DEBORAH }

Deborah's story in Judges 4 is a fascinating one, and I thank Con for mentioning her. But I cannot agree that this Deborah is any more than a political figurehead. She decides disputes for several years, yes, but she is politically subordinate to men, and CANNOT be a spiritual leader as women were forbidden from teaching religion, as Timothy amply explained.

Furthermore, the confrontation with Barak. She orders him to go do something – and he doesn't respect her authority by saying, "OK", as a woman would have been expected to do. Rather, he gives conditions that Deborah disagrees with and disapproves of, namely, that she must accompany him -- otherwise he won't do it. What does Deborah say? "I don't like it but ... OK"! If she had any real power, she would have said, Listen son, you'll go whether you like it or not. I have better things to do than provide moral support for you in battle. But she doesn't, because as a woman she must capitulate to the prince's demands. Even when inferior to her in rank, his decisions go, and he's probably only obeying Deborah because she is speaking the word of the Lord.

Later in Judges 5, we get the Song of Deborah. Instantly, the first line we get is: "When the princes in Israel take the lead..." (Jud. 5:2) Really? Barak took the lead in this situation? Barak is being praised for the victory? It may be subtle, but the song portrays Barak as the man of honor and triumph, and Deborah the woman behind him, motherly, nurturing, wise, supportive, urging him on. That's not sexist in itself, but it still does not make Deborah his equal, let alone his superior.

In the same song, blatant sexism is revealed in a totally different situation. The great enemy Sisera has been killed, and his mother's laments are described: "‘Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed? […] Are they not finding and dividing the spoils: a woman or two for each man […]?'" Oh yes, where's the spoils of war, the property like vases and gowns and sex slaves my son was supposed to bring home?

Also sexist is the very location of Sisera's mother. As described in 5:28, her window is fitted with a lattice. This is a good example of a lattice. http://www.coastalforestproducts.com... Biblical times, women were hidden away behind windows covered by a lattice, like criminals behind bars. No man was supposed to lay eyes on them besides servants, sons, brothers and husbands. These lattices restricted their freedom -- they couldn't even properly look out a window -- and were used extensively in the early Turkish empires, where the Sultans' harem resided behind lattices and were not allowed to leave their husbands' property without his permission.
GarretKadeDupre

Con

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT I: Eve is created out of Adam's rib }

Eve may have been created out of Adam's rib, but this doesn't indicate inferiority. Adam was created out of the dirt. (1) The man had more inferior origins than the woman.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT II: God considers Eve Adam's "helper" }

Yes, Eve was created to be Adam's helper. But being a helper doesn't indicate subservience; it just means you give assistance or support to someone. Being a helper is very different from being a slave, which is what Con seems to be implying. Remember, God created Eve out of Adam's rib (or side, depending on translation). She was created to be by his side as his companion, not from his head to be over him, or from his foot to be inferior to him.

Furthermore, Adam and Eve completed each other; they are equal parts of the same whole: they become "one flesh." (2)

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT III: Eve is most easily persuaded by the snake }

First of all, your source for this argument is invalid, being a comic on wordpress. Secondly, the artist is blatantly false. The snake is not "just a talking plot device", he is the "devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray." (3) Nowhere does the Bible say that Eve is most easily persuaded by the snake; Adam wasn't even tempted by it, so no comparison can be made. Further, this story can be interpreted as Eve being more intelligent and resistant to temptation than Adam. She was deceived by the devil, who "was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (4)

Eve was deceived by the supernatural master of deception. Adam blindly ate of the forbidden fruit at the suggestion of a mere human. It took 6 verses of the Bible for the snake to finally convince Eve to disobey God; it took Adam less than 1 verse to commit the same crime without a second thought.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IV: [T]he woman's punishment for sin is subservience }

Yes, God punished women as follows:

I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” (5)

But that's only 1 verse, compared to God's curse for men, which is 3 verses:

Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.” (6)

Man's punishment is lengthier than that of women, even though they committed the same crime, so you have misinterpreted those verses as being misogynist.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT V: Corinthians 11:7-9 }

You've misconstrued this verse by taking it out of context. This verse is only pressuring women to cover their heads during prayer. It's not sexist at all. If you read a little bit further down, it's clear that covering a woman's head is thought to glorify her. (13)

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT: TIMOTHY }

Jesus' apostles did not hold and teach highly sexist views, or insult a woman's intelligence. They treated women as equal. (10) Let's compare a woman (Mary) to the apostles, who were men:

Mary conceived a child by the supernatural, without the help of a man. (7) Mary never sinned against God, unlike every apostle. (8) Mary was faithful to the end; one of the apostles denied being friends with Jesus, and another betrayed Jesus for some spare cash. (9) Mary is the queen of heaven; none of the apostles can claim near as much.

Now it kind of looks like the male followers of Jesus were inferior to a woman, doesn't it?

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Timothy 2:11-15 }

Once again, you've misconstrued these passages by taking them out of context. This prohibition only applies to public ministry, which can only be officially performed by ordained clergy. As the role of ordained clergy is to pose as a physical representation of Jesus in his absence, and Jesus was a man, clergy must be men. This can also be partly attributed to the curse which Eve put on women: "The woman has tried once to teach, when she persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, and has [woefully] failed. Let her now be content to remain in silence [...]". (11)

This does not "dramatically restrict women's right to free speech"; it only says that women cannot preach in public and claim to be speaking on Jesus' behalf. It does not discourage or prevent them from standing up for themselves. Again, this quote only applies to official, public ministry.

"[B]ecause of one mistake your predecessor thousands of years ago made, you will NEVER have equal rights or equal human dignity because you are a woman [....]". That's not true. Women have the same dignity that men have. (12) However, because of the mistake their predecessor made thousands of years before, they are indeed cursed. But remember, men are also cursed by the sin of their predecessor. So this isn't just a female problem.

Per the rules you laid out, I will not refute the arguments you made in this round, but will continue to provide fresh arguments of my own.

The Bible makes it clear that men and women are equal in human dignity and are expected the same sacrifices with respect to each other, especially as a married couple. In Ephesians 5, couples are instructed to "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ":

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Husbands are expected to love and treat their wife as much as they do their own selves. If that doesn't prove that men and women share the same dignity, I don't know what does. The passage also says that a man must love his wife and give himself up for her, just like Jesus did for his church. What did Jesus do for his church? He devoted his entire life to it, suffered and died for it! So men must devote their entire self to their wives!

The Bible is not sexist.

I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttals.

(1) Genesis 2:7
(2) Genesis 2:24
(3) Revelation 12:9
(4) John 8:44
(5) Genesis 3:16
(6) Genesis 3:17-19
(7) Luke 1:34-35
(8) http://www.philvaz.com...
(9) Luke 22:47-60
(10) Acts 2:14
(11) http://haydock1859.tripod.com...
(12) Galatians 3:28
(13) 1 Corinthians 11:15
Debate Round No. 3
Imagination

Pro

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IV: EVE }

Yes, Eve was created to be Adam's helper. But being a helper doesn't indicate subservience; it just means you give assistance or support to someone.

Helping is defined as making it easier for someone to do something by offering one's services or resources. Women being created for the purpose of helping men is sexist because it deprives them of the ability to choose NOT to support or assist men without going against the purpose of their existence, God's plan for them, the expectations of society, and so many other factors that lead back to Eve's creation. Offering one's services, assistance, support or resources should ALWAYS be voluntary. Forcing someone against their will to help another for fear of ridicule, ostracism and violation of principles on basis of gender, is discrimination.

She was created to be by his side as his companion

OK, I can see that interpretation. But please don't confuse companion with helper, and let's remember that she was created FROM Adam, so that she owes her very existence, purportedly equal to Adam's, to Adam as well as God, while he owes his existence only to God, independent of a mortal being. That's a big difference when we're talking about equal creation.

And the point is not that Adam was easily persuaded by Eve. That's another matter. The point is that Eve was sin's instrument, implying that men can better resist temptation. Eve is to blame for the downfall of humanity from Paradise. In humans, Eve, the first woman, is the source of all our misery, the source of the absence of God in a corporeal world. For many Christians, only hell is worse.

And the comic was not a source O_o It was obviously misleading and hyperbolic for comedic purposes. C'mon, the site is even called "Figurative Comics".

But that's only 1 verse, compared to God's curse for men, which is 3 verses

The amount of lines something is said in and the degree of sexism it contains are completely disproportionate. Men's punishment is only lengthier in terms of mid-sentence break-ups. I see nothing misandrist in there. The punishment for both genders are equally long. The fact remains, God punishes all women with subservience to their husbands for Eve's sin. That it only took 1 verse for him to state this makes it no less sexist.

men are also cursed by the sin of their predecessor

Again. No one is arguing that Adam and Eve were not both cursed. My point is that Eve's curse makes her gender inferior to the opposite sex while Adam's does not.



{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT V: CORINTHIANS }


This verse is only pressuring women to cover their heads during prayer.

This is seriously ironic considering how many Christians I've listened to ceaselessly jabbering about the sexism and injustice of the Muslim hijab. I question the motives behind that pressuring. Why should it be anyone's business what a woman wears when she prays? Why should it be a moral regulation to wear certain things that men don't need to wear? Being forced to wear clothes you don't want to wear is oppressive, and when women are forced to wear clothes they don't want to wear it is sexist. In fact, according to Deuteronomy 22:5, women who wear pants are detested by God. Even Mother Teresa has worn pants. Does that mean she's detested by God? Restricting women's right to dress as they please is restricting their right to freedom of expression. It is undeniably sexist.



{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VI: TIMOTHY }


Now it kind of looks like the male followers of Jesus were inferior to a woman, doesn't it?

A woman is the operative numeration here. A woman whose peak achievement in life was childbirth. A woman who was inferior to her husband. A woman who was not allowed to teach religion, exercise free speech, wear what she likes, or choose whom to marry on basis of gender. Just because we can argue that Mary was morally superior to the apostles, does not mean she held more rights than they, nor that she was held as equal to them in her lifetime. Give me a Biblical passage that implies Mary is equal or superior to an apostle and I'll reconsider.

This prohibition only applies to public ministry

Really? Where does it say that? At the time Timothy was talking, there WAS no such thing as public ministry, at least not for Christians, because the Christians had no clergy, because the Christians had no Church. Christian clergy is a post-Biblical creation.

This does not "dramatically restrict women's right to free speech"; it only says that women cannot preach in public and claim to be speaking on Jesus' behalf.

When Timothy says "teach", I think we can both agree he refers to preaching. Preaching is the act of publicly proclaiming or teaching a religious message or belief. Impersonating Jesus is not a prerequisite.



{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VII: EPHESIANS }


Nice quote :3 Let's compare and contrast that passage with another from the "Instructions for Christian Households" section, shall we?


~ EPHESIANS 5 ~


21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy [...]. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church -- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. [...] 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

~ EPHESIANS 6 ~

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.


Déjà vu, anyone?

Let me clarify my point. I don't think the Bible necessarily sees women as low in status as slaves just because of their gender. They are being portrayed as inferior to men, though, in an overwhelming amount of instances. Just because a master is instructed to take care of his inferiors, as a king may be instructed to benignly treat his subjects, does not mean the power balance between them is distributed equally.


However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself ...


That last sentence ... hm. Something's itching in the back of my mind. Perhaps a mild grammatical inconsistency? >,>


... and the wife must respect her husband.


Note the whole passage says nothing about the husband respecting the wife equally. It orders a husband to love his wife, but love has many forms. Husbands can love their wives for reasons modern culture no longer sanctions as moral -- for instance, as a sex object. A love relationship does not automatically imply an equal power balance. A relationship in which BOTH partners respect each other does. A relationship in which only ONE partner respects the other is an unequal power balance. In the Ephesian scenario, wives are inferior.


wives should submit to their husbands in everything


How is this submitting to someone in everything different from basically being someone's slave? Perhaps not all women in the Bible are slaves due to gender, but wives most certainly are disturbingly close.




Vote Con!
GarretKadeDupre

Con

I feel compelled to thank Pro, again, for this interesting and intelligent debate. I must apologize for referring to Pro as 'Con' so many times before.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IV: EVE }


The Hebrew word used to describe Eve's role as Adam's helper is 'ezer.' It has much more significance than it's English counterpart. In the Old Testament, 'ezer' always refers to important and powerful assistance. 'Ezer' refers to Eve twice, but is used to describe God Himself sixteen times! (3) Clearly, the assumption that Eve's role as a helper made her subservient to man is false; else, God Himself would be subservient to man!
Women being man's helper is not sexist, because men must help women equally as well! Nothing in the Bible indicates that Adam was superior to Eve, but ample evidence proves that the two were equal. When God realized that Adam was lonely, he looked to the animals to find a "suitable* helper" for him, but none of the animals were worthy. So he created Eve from Adam's own body, because to be a suitable* helper, Eve would have to be made of the same stuff as Adam! When Adam saw Eve for the first time, he professed their equality by calling her flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. (1)
*The Hebrew words translated as "suitable helper" in the NIV Bible are better translated to "corresponding helper," which implies equality. (4)
The fact that Adam existed first is merely a matter of chronological order, not hierarchy. Would your wife would be in anyway inferior to you just because she is younger and came into existence after you did?
Pro says that "[t]he point is that Eve was sin's instrument, implying that men can better resist temptation." That's false. Their is no implication the Bible that men can better resist temptation. In fact, if their is any implication either way, it is that women can better resist temptation. Remember, it took much discourse between Eve and the snake to convince her to sin, but Adam didn't even question the temptation to eat the fruit that Eve handed to him!
Pro claims "Eve is to blame for the downfall of humanity from Paradise." That is also false. Adam is entirely to blame for the downfall of humanity from Paradise. (2)
According to Pro, "Eve's curse makes her gender inferior to the opposite sex while Adam's does not" and implies that the curses are sexist. Taken out of context, it might seem so. Indeed, Eve's punishment was retributive justice; a woman had taken the lead in the transgression and tempted her husband. But when read in the context of the entire Bible, this implies no sexism at all. The story comes full circle in the New Testament: As Eve, a woman, helped doom mankind in the Old Testament, so Mary, a woman, helped redeem mankind in the New Testament by giving birth to the Savior; Judas, a man, sent the Savior to death for petty cash. The gender roles are reversed, erasing any perceived implication of Biblical sexism.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT V: CORINTHIANS }


Pro brings up irrelevant, contemporary and anecdotal points in this argument that have nothing to do with the Bible, and by extension, this debate. He also claims that women don't want to wear head coverings during prayer, but offers no biblical evidence for this. He also fails to address my point that the covering of a woman's head is considered to glorify her!
Women being required to dress properly for religious rituals is not sexist; there are also instances of men being required to dress a certain way for religious reasons. (6) Like women, men weren't required to wear their religious coverings outside of prayer, either. (7) It can't be argued that guidelines for women's dress is sexist, because as their are rules for woman in the Bible, there are rules for men, too. (5)
Pro states that "[women's head coverings] are undeniably sexist", but I've proven this wrong.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VI: TIMOTHY }


Pro attempts to make Mary appear inferior by pointing out that she gave birth, miraculously, to God Himself. This is a self-defeating strategy.
Pro also claims that "[Mary] was inferior to her husband." This is blatantly false. Let's contrast Mary and her husband, Joseph:
Mary was prophesied about in the Old Testament, long before she even existed. Mary is Satan's nemesis, and portrayed in a war against an evil dragon. (8) Mary never sinned against God. Mary was miraculously impregnated by a person of the Holy Trinity, God Himself, while retaining her virginity! Mary is Queen of Heaven, and described as "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head"! (9)
Not be belittle Joseph's position as Jesus' earthly father, but little is said of him and he isn't even mentioned in the Bible after Jesus' 13th birthday. Any claim of Mary being inferior to Joseph is ludicrous.
Pro tells me to "[g]ive [him] a Biblical passage that implies Mary is equal or superior to an apostle." I tried to do this in my argument in round 3, but made a careless mistake in my references, so I have to apologize. Source 10 of my round 3 argument should read "Acts 1:13-14". But I think it's already settled that Mary was not inferior to the apostles.
In reference to the book of Timothy, Pro says, "At the time Timothy was talking, there WAS no such thing as public ministry", and thereby affirms his lack of understanding for the material he quotes. Timothy isn't the person who is talking, it's Paul. (10) Pro continues, "there WAS no such thing as public ministry [...] because the Christians had no Church." This argument is based on the premise that Christians didn't have a church in the Bible. Again, Pro is wrong. The Christian's Church began during Jesus' lifetime. (11) Furthermore, Paul's writings in the Bible are, in fact, promoting public ministry.
According to Pro, "Preaching is the act of publicly proclaiming or teaching a religious message or belief. Impersonating Jesus is not a prerequisite." This is a straw-man. I never claimed that public preachers must impersonate Jesus.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VII: EPHESIANS }


Pro states that "[Women] are being portrayed as inferior to men, though, in an overwhelming amount of instances." This is false. Women are never portrayed as inferior to men. The Bible does point out differences between men and women, but the fact that they are equal in their humanity is enforced. To claim the Bible is sexist because of pointing out differences in genders is akin to calling evolution and biology (and thus, science) sexist! Men and women, by definition, must be distinctly different, or gender would not even exist!
Pro tries to infer sexism from this passage:
"[a husband] must love his wife as he loves himself [...] and the wife must respect her husband."
To infer sexism from this, one must ignore the verses in between them that command a husband to suffer and die for his wife if necessary! It isn't even implied that a wife should suffer or die for her husband!

The Bible is not sexist.

In order to remove any lingering doubt as to this fact, I will now present a couple more arguments.
Men and women are described as not only equal, but co-dependent on one another: "[W]oman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman." (12)
After Christ's Ressurection, he first appeared to a woman: Mary Magdalene. She never doubted Jesus' Ressurection; Thomas did. The woman's faith in Christ was stronger than the man's; because of this, Jesus denied the blessing to Thomas that he gave to Mary.

(1) Genesis 2:18-23
(2) Romans 5:12
(3) http://newlife.id.au...
(4) http://www.tofm.org...'s_helper.htm
(5) Deuteronomy 22:5
(6) Leviticus 21:10
(7) Acts 23:1-5
(8) Genesis 3:15
(9) Revelations 12:1
(10) 1 Timothy 1:1-2
(11) Matthew 16:18
(12) 1 Corinthians 11:11-12
(13) John 20:1-29
Debate Round No. 4
Imagination

Pro

I must apologize for referring to Pro as 'Con' so many times before.

*gets itchy feeling in back of head*

*scrolls up apprehensively*

*sees last two words of previous round and resoundingly facepalms self*

Sorry everyone for the huge bolded identity crisis on my part o_O I guess both GKD and I may've confused our Pro/Con titles there for a moment. Nothing to see here. Let's move it along :D


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VIII: EZER }

In the Old Testament, 'ezer' always refers to important and powerful assistance. 'Ezer' refers to Eve twice, but is used to describe God Himself sixteen times! Clearly, the assumption that Eve's role as a helper made her subservient to man is false; else, God Himself would be subservient to man!

I did some hunting and traced this interpretation back to R. David Freedman's article "Woman, a Power Equal to Man", published in the Biblical Archaeology Review Volume 9, 1983, pages 56-58. In fact, using a broad search of online arguments about "helper" being an unsuitable translation, basically all appeared to source back to this one article, which, incidentally, did not provide any reference to where in the Bible the word "ezer" was used to describe God, though it would have been interesting to see what the NIV scholars would have thought about such passages.

Freedman was a professor at the University of California at Davis in the 80s specializing in Assyriology. The NIV Bible meanwhile was originally translated by over 100 of the best scholars worldwide and has its own committe comprising a minimum of 15 top scholars who regularly join with other select scholars to update the translation. The quotes I used came from the 2011 update. http://www.biblegateway.com...

I will let the voters judge whether one 80s professor's singular opinion is superior to that of an international panel of top scholars who published contradictory findings 28 years after he did using far more up-to-date methods.

And frankly I fail to see how being a "corresponding" helper to someone as opposed to being a "suitable" helper to someone really changes the interpretation of subservience, which is further emphasized when God punishes Eve with subservience to her husband, a passage that Con has so far failed to respond to.

Would your wife would be in anyway inferior to you just because she is younger and came into existence after you did?

I never made an argument of chronology. I made the argument of who DIRECTLY came from God. If I came from a supreme, omnipotent being, and my wife came from me, she would not have come from equally glorious origins, for obvious reasons.

it took much discourse between Eve and the snake to convince her to sin, but Adam didn't even question the temptation to eat the fruit that Eve handed to him

...Because he trusted Eve and she deceived him. This places the responsibility for the sin disproportionately on Eve.

Adam is entirely to blame for the downfall of humanity from Paradise

Just because the verse you quoted makes a direct comparison between Adam and Jesus, and thus doesn't trace sin back to the woman, that notion can be totally disproved by many more verses -- for instance God's punishing of both Adam and Eve for their sins.

The story comes full circle in the New Testament: As Eve, a woman, helped doom mankind in the Old Testament, so Mary, a woman, helped redeem mankind in the New Testament by giving birth to the Savior; Judas, a man, sent the Savior to death for petty cash. The gender roles are reversed

No. Eve's parallel is Mary, but Adam's parallel is JESUS, not Judas, for crying out loud (Romans 5). Besides, to fill Judas's role with a male is OBLIGATORY, because due to sexism, only men were allowed to be apostles.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IX: HEADDRESS }

He also claims that women don't want to wear head coverings during prayer, but offers no biblical evidence for this.

I never claimed that. I said it's sexist not to let women choose their own dress. Pressuring and ordering women to dress a certain way restricts their freedom to choose otherwise. That doesn't mean all women want to do otherwise, it means they ought to have the room to do so if they want to, and refrain from doing so if they don't want to.

the covering of a woman's head is considered to glorify her

The woman is told that covering her head serves to glorify her. I could tell a child that wearing sunglasses serves to make them look smart. It's a good way of getting women to cover their heads, elsewise they aren't glorious. That doesn't make it less restrictive on the freedom to choose not to -- in fact, it makes the restriction more manipulative. Women were oppressed during worship (Corinthians 1:34-35).

Women being required to dress properly for religious rituals is not sexist

Perhaps not ritual ceremonies. But prayer is personal worship. Women ought to be allowed to wear what they like to worship God personally. Your source 6 refers to a priest wearing his clothes to work. That does not restrict his right to choose what clothes he wears when he's not at work. Your source 7 says nothing about dress at all and is very misleadingly sourced.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT X: MARY }

Pro attempts to make Mary appear inferior by pointing out that she gave birth, miraculously, to God Himself.

? Since when did God come out of Mary's womb? I thought it was God's son Jesus? Unless God was born out of his own seed? Besides, I wasn't making Mary inferior by saying she gave birth to Jesus. I find that admirable. I'm saying she did not have an opportunity to achieve a major distinction through methods other than childbearing due to the sexist restrictions on holding jobs that existed at her time.

Any claim of Mary being inferior to Joseph is ludicrous.

And for the umpteenth time. When I say inferior, I do not mean morally or spiritually inferior. I mean she doesn't have the same rights as her superior. And my case is that married women did not have the equal rights their husbands were granted.

Mary is Satan's nemesis, and portrayed in a war against an evil dragon. (8)

I ... what? Your Bible quotes are very misleadingly sourced. That segment just says that there will be enmity between snakes and women and that snakes will bite the male offspring of Eve and that the male offspring of Eve will step on the snakes' heads. What on Earth does this have to do with Mary being at war with an evil dragon?

Mary was miraculously impregnated by a person of the Holy Trinity, God Himself, while retaining her virginity!

Why is a woman's virginity a virtue? What is so wrong about a woman getting pregnant from sex? This sounds like you're glorifying the sad fact that before women's emancipation, a woman who lost her virginity to a man she was not married to was considered damaged goods, had lost what made her good and pure, and could no longer be prized as an individual-slash-bargaining chip.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT XI: TIMOTHY }

Pro attempts to make Mary appear inferior by pointing out that she gave birth, miraculously, to God Himself.

Matthew 16:18 directly contradicts that there was a Church in Jesus's lifetime. This is the third time Con's sourcing has been immensely misleading. In that verse, Jesus tells a guy named Simon that Simon is Peter, which means "rock", and continues to say that he, Jesus, will found the Church on the rock. Will being the operative word. After Jesus's death, Peter would found the Church to continue Jesus's teachings. (http://www.ovrlnd.com...)

I never claimed that public preachers must impersonate Jesus.

Of course you did. I quote: "women cannot preach in public and claim to be speaking on Jesus' behalf". Your original counter-argument to Timothy was structured purely around the idea that women cannot represent Jesus.

Furthermore, Paul's writings in the Bible are, in fact, promoting public ministry.

No source at all >< Meanwhile I've offered a good reason for why that's not possible.


I hold by my resolution. The Bible is sexist.

May the right man win :D
GarretKadeDupre

Con

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VIII: EZER }

Eve isn't inferior or subservient to Adam just because she is called helper; the Hebrew word used for helper is used to describe God Himself sixteen times. If called a helper makes one subservient or inferior in the context of the Bible, then God is subservient and inferior to humans. Here are sixteen references to God as helper:

Hosea 13:9; Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7; Deuteronomy 33:26; Deuteronomy 33:29; Psalm 20:2; Psalm 33:20; Psalm 70:5; Psalm 89:17; Psalm 115:9-11; Psalm 121:1-2; Psalm 146:5; Isaiah 30:5; Ezekiel 12:14; Daniel 11:34.

Pro "fail[s] to see how being a "corresponding" helper to someone as opposed to being a "suitable" helper to someone really changes the interpretation of subservience". The interpretation of helper to subservience is invalid, unless Pro thinks God is subervient to man. In that case he'd concede that Eve's equal to God, undermining his entire argument.

Pro: "God punishes Eve with subservience to her husband, a passage that Con has so far failed to respond to." Eve's curse passed to her daughters; Adam's curse passed to his sons. Women's curse involved subordinance because the first woman tempted the first man. The curses men and women received were related to the crime which the first man and first woman committed; that's not sexism, that's retributive justice.

Pro "made the argument of who DIRECTLY came from God" to 'prove' the inferior origins of Eve relative to Adam, implying Adam came directly from God while Eve came directly from Adam. God created Adam directly from the dirt, but created Eve from a human being. Unless Pro thinks Adam's body is inferior to the dirt, his argument undermines his claim that Eve had lowlier origins than Adam.

Pro says "the responsibility for the sin [is] disproportionately on Eve" because "[Adam] trusted Eve", but provides no biblical evidence for this.

I proved Adam was to blame for humanity's downfall with Romans 5:12, and Pro contested this by saying the passage "makes a direct comparison between Adam and Jesus". This doesn't refute my point. "[S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people"; the "one man" is clearly Adam.

The commentary in Pro's source reads: "The parallel [this passage] runs [is]the communication of sin and death by the first Adam". It's clear the "first Adam" is Adam. Adam is entirely to blame for the downfall from paradise; not Eve.

Pro claims "Adam's [New Testament] parallel is JESUS, not Judas". Wrong. Sin and death came through Adam in the Old Testament, but hope and life came through Mary in the New Testament through her birthing of the Savior.

Pro claims "due to sexism, only men were allowed to be apostles", and thus fails to understand the relevant history to realize the practical reasons for this. There is also the fact that this was not sexism on Jesus' part, but sexism on the part of the establishment he was trying to destroy.

I'll explain this irony:

The story of Jesus is that of a man organizing a peaceful revolution against the leaders who enforced obsolete tradition. Jesus didn't get along with these people because of their customs and beliefs, but had to exercise a level of quietness in the beginning of his ministry. (1)(2)(3)(4)(8) Were he to draw too much attention to himself too soon, he and his mission would have been quashed in its infancy. Occasionally, however, he couldn't conceal his animosity towards the obscene practices of the contemporary Jews. (5) Because the first wave of Jesus' ministry was aimed solely at the Jews, only Jewish men could have been appointed at first. The Jewish people of the time were generally prejudiced towards other races (6)(7), and women weren't considered worthy of taking part in Jewish public life, much less of preaching publicly on matters of religion. Had the first apostles not been Jewish men, Jesus' mission would never have been taken seriously by anyone, and destined to fail before it even started. Despite all this, though, Jesus actually did allow many women to follow him and the twelve apostles. (9)(10) After Jesus' revolution had been set in motion, he stopped practicing caution in choosing his disciples. Both the limits on gender (12) and race (11) were discontinued, because there was no more reason to fear the establishment.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IX: HEADDRESS }

Pro incorrectly says "it's sexist not to let women choose their own dress [during prayer]"; men had requirements for prayer dress too.

Pro argues against me by making non-biblical (and thus irrelevant) analogies, then says "[w]omen were oppressed during worship" by citing a non-existant bible verse.

Pro says "[w]omen ought to be allowed to wear what they like to worship God personally", but the bible agrees; the passage on headdress only applies to formal prayer.

Pro incorrectly says my "source 7 says nothing about dress at all and is very misleadingly sourced." The passage implies the priests weren't required to wear formal attire outside of worship; Paul can't distinguish a priest from the others because he was in informal dress!

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT X: MARY }

Pro demonstrates more lack of understanding for Bible by asking "[s]ince when did God come out of Mary's womb? I thought it was God's son Jesus?" God's son Jesus, and God Himself, are paradoxically the same but separate. (13)

Pro explains his "case is that married women did not have the equal rights their husbands were granted" but offers no evidence.

Pro asks me "[w]hat on Earth does [my verse] have to do with Mary being at war with an evil dragon?" The verse reads, "[God] will put enmity between [the serpent] and the woman, and between [the serpent's] [seed] and hers". The next part continues: "he will crush your head, and [the serpent] will strike his heel", but the NIV translation is misleading; the Hebrew is ambiguous as to whether it reads "he will[...]his heel" or "she will[...]her heel". However, three famous Jewish scholars are in agreement that it should be translated as "she will[...]her heel": Philo Judaeus, Josephus the roman historian, and Moses Maimonides the philosopher. (14) Thus, the passage reads:

"[God] will put enmity between [the serpent] and the woman, and between [the serpent's] [seed] and hers; she will crush [the serpent's] head, and [the serpent] will strike her heel."

The verse isn't referring to Eve, but prophecying Mary's role in defeating the devil by birthing the Savior. In biblical context, only men have 'seed', but this is foretelling the Virgin birth; Jesus would be conceived without the help of a man, and thus, he would be Mary's 'seed.' (16) The passage can't be talking about Eve, because Eve wasn't a virgin after she had kids.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT XI: TIMOTHY }

Pro contradicts himself. He claims that there was no church in Jesus' lifetime, but then right after quotes Jesus himself announcing he will start a church!

Pro defends his strawman by not recognizing impersonate and represent arn't synonymous. He claims it's impossible that Paul promoted public ministry. I quote Paul himself:

"You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house." (16)

"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction." (17)

The Bible is not sexist. Thank you everyone.

(1) Luke 19:47
(2) Luke 20:19
(3) Luke 22:2
(4) Matthew 8:3-4
(5) Matthew 21:12
(6) Luke 7:1-7
(7) Acts 10:28
(8) John 4:1-3
(9) Luke 8:1-3
(10) Mark 15:40-42
(11) Matthew 28:16-20
(12) Acts 9:36
(13) John 14:8-10
(14) http://cantuar.blogspot.com...
(15) http://www.ewtn.com...
(16) Acts 20:20
(17) 2 Timothy 4:1-2
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
No the bible is not sexist, I challenge anyone who will challenge me to this debate**
Posted by babyy 4 years ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
ty wolfman4711
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
@wolfman4711

Seriously? Please update your RFD
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
DudeWithoutTheE, that was an incredible analysis. I'm honored that you put so much effort into honestly analyzing my arguments :)

P.S. are you Christian or? I hate when people don't let me stalk their profile to find out their personal info i.e. religion, age, gender, address, favorite secret hiding place, etc.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
Finally, I think the strongest formulation of the Pro case is to quote the 'For me, the single strongest formation of the Pro case is the 'Woman submits to Husband as man submits to God' bit. No-one denies that the Bible holds man inferior to God, that would be nuts. Therefore, to put women in the same position vis-a-vis men as men have with regard to God is undeniably giving them inferior status.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
7) Examples of women in the Bible, especially Mary. Not particularly interested in either side here, don't think that the Bible speaking highly of one or two women (or badly, for that matter) says that much about whether it, as a whole, is sexist. Bladerunner makes this point about the historical aspects of the Bible - in so far as it attempts to record what actually happened in Jewish society, I'm not particularly bothered by the examples either side brings. Pro does show himself ignorant of the very basic Christian doctrine that Jesus is God here. A note on the Immaculate Conception - most Protestants consider the doctrine to be unbiblical. In terms of the Catholic doctrine, there is a kind of Kantian argument - Mary is made without sin only because it would be unfitting for God to be born to a sinner, therefore God is merely using her as a means to an end, he's not doing it out of any kind of gender equality agenda.

8) Corinthians. There's a lot of interesting stuff about the historical context of this passage that's not in the debate. A strong Con argument here would point out that there are restrictions on both men and womens' apparel choice. When Pro says 'Women should be able to wear what they like' you can point out that if that's true, it should also apply to men (ie can wear hats if they want). Or that the historical context was that women were attending temple with jewels in their hair and overly concerned about their appearances at the time of the letters, and this was distracting them from worship.

A note to Pro in general, saying something like 'Separate but equal, where have I seen that before?' is unpersuasive. I'm minded to agree with you, but it could be argued that the problem with segregation was that these provisions just so happened to be unequal. It's on you to prove WHY separate CANNOT be equal.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
3) Eve persuaded by the Snake. Con offers no reason to believe that the snake represents Satan, rather than literally being a snake (or a forerunner of it, since it is God's punishment of the snake that makes it the snake we know by this account). Nonetheless, this account of it is uncontested therefore the assertion stands, and by virtue of the Pauline quote Con brings, we must accept that it is Adam's sin which is the greater since it is his that condemns man.

4) God's punishment to woman. Pro wins this, even though it is not established as well as it could be - I would have liked to see Pro make the point that Adam's punishment de facto affects the human race as a whole, while Eve's punishment applies to women specifically, therefore women are double-punished. I don't buy that the length of the text of the punishment matters -it seems prima facie less important than the severity. I could sentence you to a combo of prison and community service, which would be complicated and require explanation, or I could sentence you to death. Which is worse? 'Rule over' is explicitly setting one over the other. That's sexist.

5) The letter to Timothy. Con mitigates, but does not defeat, this point. EVEN IF not allowing a woman to teach or hold authority is restricted to Church settings, that is still depriving women of the divine sanction to do something granted to men on the basis of their sex. That is sexist.

6) Ephesians. Pro wins this easily, it is clearly his strongest point in the whole debate and would probably be enough on its own to win the debate for him. That the Bible uses essentially similar language toward wives as it does toward slaves strongly suggests that the Bible supports master-slave like relations between man and wife. There's no way that isn't sexist.

One more post to come.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
OK, full RFD. I will explain sources to Con first, as this is shorter. Basically, Con backs up his points with reference to several different Bible verses showing deeper understanding of the Bible, gives a full source list at the ends of rounds, and also makes references to non-Bible sources that support his point. It wasn't perfect - there are more sophisticated and academically 'respectable' Christian theological resources available on the net than the ones he used - but it was enough to win this point over Pro, whose use of sources was pretty lacking.

Right, now onto arguments, I'll take these one by one. I think Con actually wins his fair share of these, but by virtue of the ones Pro wins, he meets BoP.

1) Adam being created first and Eve being made from his rib. Con defends this successfully with his 'From the rib means equality, as opposed to feet or head' argument. I'd have liked to see a source which suggests this is an academically respected position, but the symbolic case Con makes makes enough sense for me to judge that, at worst, Pro hasn't proven this is definitely sexist.

2) Eve is Adam's helper. Con wins here again, on the grounds of his appeal to the word 'Ezer' and the fact that it is used repeatedly to describe God. In the context of the Bible, something that describes God cannot in itself be held to be diminishing (I can accept this on the eighth grader test, which I will elaborate on in the forum sometime - basically, if the average eighth grader would know something to be true, it can be accepted, and if known to be false, disregarded, regardless of whether challenge is offered to it). There is an argument that defining someone SOLELY in relation to another as their assistant inherently places the first person lower, but Pro doesn't make it, so Con wins here.

Rest of clash points in the next post.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
Blade, I disagree. EVEN IF it is true and from God, that doesn't mean it's not sexist. It would just mean that God was sexist, and that sexism is therefore right. Like, Genesis is objectively Speciesist, but reasonable people might differ over whether that's any kind of problem. I interpret it as 'The message of the Bible is sexist' which I think is a reasonable understanding. There are questions like "Why would ANY account of history, assuming it is true, be sexist?" which are absolutely reasonable grounds on which to have the debate, I don't think their existence prevents it being an interesting debate.

I would give a detailed RFD (in short, arguments to Pro though not by that much, Sources to Con, everything else tied) but since it's still not letting me vote, I'll wait until it does.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
ImaginationGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starting with the definition dug his own grave what he pointed out could not make it fit the description, con made some very strong counter points while exposing the fact that being a helper is not sexist. Con made it a point to list his sources in a very accessible way.
Vote Placed by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
ImaginationGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It would seem to me that upon reading both arguments, both make the point that the bible IS sexist. The difference is not in context, rather interpretation. Con does not see what would generally be regarded "sexist" as sexism. The very story of the virgin Mary is sexist. Mary did not choose to marry Joseph. She did not choose to be impregnated by her god. Mary could not have been a morally superior woman because she was a little girl. The very fact that a little girl was A) Given into marriage to a much older man (Joseph) is proof enough that the bible teaches sexism. The fact that B) the god of the bible impregnates this little girl is eve more sexist. Pro didn't have to make all these arguments, for Con only disagrees in interpretation- not content. The content of the bible is very clearly sexist.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
ImaginationGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Religious reasons
Vote Placed by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
ImaginationGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Full RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
ImaginationGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
ImaginationGarretKadeDupreTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I rule sources as a tie, but the reason that Pro wins this debate is because of that Con mentioned several times as eve being the important servant/ Helper this places eve lower then Adam on the totem poll so this places the Bible as sexist, then you see the curse that God gave man is more extensive, but however the punishment for women is more painfull, while God basicly called men worthless with this curse.