The Instigator
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Staerkel
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Staerkel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,432 times Debate No: 15562
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Zealous1

Pro

First off I thank whoever my opponent shall be for accepting this debate.

My argument is that women should not teach men in church. eg. Pastor, according to the Bible. My opponent may start with whatever verses he/she chooses.

Rules:

1. This debate is based on the Bible. (The Christian Bible, not the Pali Canon which some other person did last time)

2. Forfeit means losing all 7 points. Even if you come back after the forfeit.

3. Dropped arguments are conceded.

4. If you must extend your argument for any given round, you can start a "new debate", write the rest of the arguments, and cancel the debate immediately. (If you're unsure how to do this you can PM me)

5. (Optional) It's preferable if you're a Christian as well so that we have a real Bible clash, not just someone's view of the Bible. (By Christian I mean protestant, Baptist, around those lines. Mormons and Catholics are not in my list)

6. No semantics.

7. My opponent is to argue that the Bible does overall show that women can teach men.

8. Before accepting this debate, my opponent should message me and talk a little bit. I've had enough lame versions of this debate, so I want to ensure a quality debate.

Sorry if all these rules seem stingy, but I've had many a ridiculous round with semantics, forfeits, dropped arguments, etc.

Let's keep this round professional but fun.

I await an opponent.
Staerkel

Con

First i would like to thank my opponent for making this challenge available, and wish him luck.

I am con, therefore i am to argue that woman can teach(Preach) the word of god.

Sexism is one gender, usually male, having dominance over the other gender, usually female. The Bible contains many references to women that, to our modern mindset, sound discriminatory towards women. But we have to remember that when the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorses that action. The Bible describes men treating women as little more than property, but that does not mean God approves of that action. The Bible is far more focused on reforming our souls than our societies. God knows that a changed heart will result in a changed behavior.

During Old Testament times, virtually every culture in the entire world was patriarchal in structure. That status of history is very clear—not only in Scripture but also in the rules that governed most societies. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint, that is called "sexist." God ordained the order in society, not man, and He is the author of the establishment principles of authority. However, like everything else, fallen man has corrupted this order. That has resulted in the inequality of the standing of men and women throughout history. The exclusion and the discrimination that we find in our world is nothing new. It is the result of the fall of man and the introduction of sin. Therefore, we can rightly say that the term and the practice of "sexism" is a result of sin. The progressive revelation of the Bible leads us to the cure for sexism and indeed all the sinful practices of the human race.

To find and maintain a spiritual balance between the God-ordained positions of authority, we must look to Scripture. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, and in it we find principles that tell us the correct line of authority and the cure for sin, the ill of all humanity, and that includes discrimination based upon gender.

The cross of Christ is the great equalizer. John 3:16 says, "Whoever believes," and that is an all-inclusive statement that leaves no one out on the basis of position in society, mental capacity, or gender. We also find a passage in Galatians that speaks of our equal opportunity for salvation. "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28). There is no sexism at the cross.

By examining the references from the bible we can also concede that god would have no problem and would even look highly upon woman Ministers.

Thank you and i will now wait for the next round posting.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealous1

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting and creating some arguments.

This text can be wrapped up rather quickly. My opponent's basic argument is that the old testament was sexist and the New Testament isn't, and that because we can all be saved women can teach men.

First off, my opponent is basically calling the Bible sexist. Would the Bible portray women lower if that was sinful? The Bible would have a clear marker showing that it is wrong to think of women that way. There are many clear verses showing that men should be the leaders. That doesn't mean women should be slaves, but they're not supposed to be the head.

Secondly in response to this blatant statement, I'll remind you of the prophetesses and a few of the women leaders. There weren't many, true, but there were some. That shows the Bible has balance. The Bible obviously is not sexist.

Con then moved on to quote Galatians 3:26-28 and paraphrase John 3:16, which basically state that we can all be saved and there is no distinction.

I agree that this abolishes the distinction of standing in Christ that was present in the Old Testament. (Eg. Jews had a different standing with Christ compared to Gentiles, and Men compared to Females).

But! That's where we draw the line. If you go to Galatians 1:6, where Paul is introducing what this letter is about, we read:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Thus Galatians is discussing the gospel and our standing in Christ, NOT the functionality we have in Church. This verse is "untopical", or in other words does not apply. It is fallacious to use it in such a way.

Same goes for John 3:16. It's showing our standing in Christ. Not our functionality in Church.



But with this rebuttal of my opponent's fallacious arguments, I have only proved neutrality. Neither of us have proved Pro or Con. Thus I will present my own verses which ARE talking about functionality in Church.

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

This is the New Testament. Thus my opponent's argument about "everything is changed in the NT" falls apart.
But there's more.

1 Corinthians 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.


As you can see, this point is clearly proved by Pro with these two verses. They are both in the New Testament.

I agree with Con on the fact that male/female standing in Christ is the same. But functionality in the Church is different, as evidenced by these verses.

In order for Con to prove his point, he must prove these verses are faulty and bring up verses of his own proving HIS point. We both have equal burden of proof.

Thank you for reading and voting on this debate.

I give it to Con.
Staerkel

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for replying and creating well thought out arguments.

I will first begin by rebuilding my case.

My opponent said that the main point of my argument is that the old testament is sexist while the new testament is not. However my opponent misconstrued my case.

I in fact said that the mind set of those times tended to subjugate women. Women now, however are equal to men because of progressive reforms and a remolding of our culture. So we must look at this as a matter of a cultural premise.

The bible was written in a time when women were looked at as no less than property, so naturally this is a major influencing factor when it comes to the understanding of the book.

I also pointed out in my first argument that man is fallen. Since sin has been introduced into the psychosis of man. We must concede that discriminatory actions stem from hatred and hatred stems from sin. Since sin is a huge factor in the ways of gender treatment, We must finally conclude that sexism is in fact sin. God does not endorse sin of course, so we must finally see that god would not approve of rendering women from preaching.

Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24

From that verse alone we can see that we are all the same. There are no genders nor races to be held specifically accountable we are all responsible under Christ.

Thank you for voting, i now give it to the Pro
Debate Round No. 2
Zealous1

Pro

I in return thank my opponent for responding.

My opponent said that the main point of my argument is that the old testament is sexist while the new testament is not. However my opponent misconstrued my case.

I in fact said that the mind set of those times tended to subjugate women. Women now, however are equal to men because of progressive reforms and a remolding of our culture. So we must look at this as a matter of a cultural premise.

Then I misunderstood you. But my other response still counts. We’re debating whether the Bible teaches that women can teach men in Church, not whether women should teach or not based on the Bible. Two different things.

I also pointed out in my first argument that man is fallen. Since sin has been introduced into the psychosis of man. We must concede that discriminatory actions stem from hatred and hatred stems from sin. Since sin is a huge factor in the ways of gender treatment, We must finally conclude that sexism is in fact sin. God does not endorse sin of course, so we must finally see that god would not approve of rendering women from preaching.

I agree God does not endorse sin.

Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24

Remember what I said in the last round. Galatians is about our standing towards Christ, not our functionality towards each other. Con has still failed to provide the verse he needs to prove his point.

“From that verse alone we can see that we are all the same. There are no genders nor races to be held specifically accountable we are all responsible under Christ.”

No genders? How interesting. I’ll assume Con did not mean that literally as in there’s no such thing as male or female.

But either way, that verse does not prove that we have the same role. It only proves something that is unrelated to this debate.

Moving on

I have refuted all of what my opponent stated.

Now, moving on to dropped arguments. All Con refuted was my misunderstanding of his case. But he did not at all attack my verses (1 Timothy and the Corinthians one.)

Because Con dropped them, it means Con conceded these points. In other words, Con agrees that these verses prove my point. Because of this and many other reasons, I urge you to vote Pro.

There’s one last thing I want to address. Con is trying to say that even though there are verses in the Bible that teach women should not teach men in Church, these do not apply because they’re sinful? Con tried to make it sound logical. That the people back then treated women low, and that’s sexism. Since sexism is sin, then those verses don’t apply.

But step away from the “links” for a second. Con is saying that those verses are sinful. The Bible is inspired by God. It was written by men, yes, but God would not allow any sin to be endorsed. God merely used their hand and their writing style to speak his word. So my verses are penned by men, but inspired by God. God endorses these verses. (If he didn’t endorse them they would either 1. Not be there or 2. Act like those verses are sinful.) The Bible obviously is endorsing my position.

Let’s use an example to put it into perspective. Con is claiming that the verses I have are sinful. That God doesn’t actually endorse those verses. Let’s say Corinthians 3:12 said “Murder is not a sin. People should murder each other.” Would God allow that verse to be in the Bible? Of course not, it’s endorsing sin. Same way with my verses. God would not allow those verses to be there unless he MEANT them.

It is not sexism! If you look after 1 Corinthians 14:34 (the verse proving my point), it says “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

We can draw some things from this verse. 1. That it is the Lord’s commandment that women should not teach men in church. 2. If someone does not agree with this verse, he is not to be recognized. I almost laughed as I read this. The Bible is telling you, voter, to ignore what Con says because he does not recognize the validity of this verse.

A little humor lightens up any debate :).

Thank you for voting, and I hand it over to Con. What Con must do in the next round is bring up verses that actually negate mine. Otherwise there’s no way Con has fulfilled his burden.

Staerkel

Con

It seems i have misconstrued the topic, i thought we were debating whether they should, not that the bible says they should. My mistake.

However it seems that this is a meaningless debate then. If i say, "That history book does not teach mathematics, and then ask you to prove how it does. That is pointless. The bible doesn't speak highly of women because of the time it was written, so of course it's not going to teach of women ministry.

It even says directly in the bible, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says"

This debate then is completely skewed in the affirmatives favor, and there is no possible ground for the con to take.
Debate Round No. 3
Zealous1

Pro

Con conceded all my points. Thus I win this debate round.

Now onto the point about being too biased of a topic:

I actually had the same topic, based on the Bible. I was advocating for this position. I lost. It's possible to win. Of course, Con has lost because he conceded everything now.

Please vote Pro because I have adequately proved that the Bible does overall teach that women should not teach men in church. Also because Con misunderstood the meaning of this debate, even though the resolution obviously states what it is.

When you are voting, please cast aside personal bias on the issue. If you disagree with me for some reason, please do not take it out on the ballot. You are voting on what we have said in response to each other's arguments, not what you believe on the position. (Except for the top two options).

I thank Con for the debate, and you for voting.
Staerkel

Con

I thank my opponent for posting and a clean debate round.

Yes, in fact i conceded the majority of your arguments but you never refute that this is extremely skewed, you vaguely state that it's possible to win, but we need to really ask, how possible? Your burden of proof isn't challenging, all it is, is that "This book says this." and honestly when your burden of proof is just affirming that a book states or supports something it's not a fair debate for both sides at all.

If the debate was whether woman should preach, the burden would be balanced. But the burden is, "Does the bible's contextual wording condemn women from preaching" and of course the bible does, the con never has a chance.

If the bible was made in a more modern era, there wouldn't be mentioning of women submitting, or leniency towards slave owning or a light sentence towards rape. My opponent automatically will win because the bible was made in a era where different genders and racist were discriminated against.

Vote for the Con because this was an abusive and skewed round from the start.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I think Con proves that it's okay for women to teach in church; but never actually proves it's okay to pastor. Conduct goes to pro because they stayed in the realm of the debate better (although they where a bit snipey) arguments go to Pro for the same reason, and Sources go pro because of Con's non-sequitar interpretation of scripture (John 3:16 in round 1)

Pro; you need to be more neutral in these debates, you come off a bit cocky and harsh. It's as though your attack make your opponent seem as though they're an idiot (which makes for a very poor habit to fall into when trying to have a serious debate)

Con; it seems as though your conclusions where based on generalizations and vague concepts. Also the non-sequitar conclusions you make through-out the round make it extremely hard for me to want to vote for you. In a round like this I'm looking for solid analysis and scripture to back a claim.
also you avoid your opponent's framers' intent; he's talking about pastor-ship not prophecy and such.

over all this was a good round; but I could see it having been much better.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
They're out of context? In what way? Please tell me how that is so.
Posted by sxdirtbikedudemx 5 years ago
sxdirtbikedudemx
Pro's usage of Bible verses are used out of context to try to prove his point. Also, the word for woman used in both verses is the Greek word guné: which is defined as bride, wife. This is no different than what we are already told in scripture. Ephesians 5:24: Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their hands in everything.
Posted by Staerkel 5 years ago
Staerkel
The bible doesn't endorse rape, it endorses a LIGHT punishment.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Rape? You're saying the Bible endorses rape?

Slavery: Let's not go into that. It has to do with how they were treated...
Posted by Staerkel 5 years ago
Staerkel
So by your logic, slavery is ok, rape isn't that bad, and also discrimination is golden.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Do you think God's going to let his word be known as wrong? God wouldn't let something completely wrong be written.
Posted by Staerkel 5 years ago
Staerkel
God's word that was written by flawed man.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
First, you didn't have to accept if you didn't want to debate this.

Second:

If the bible was made in a more modern era, there wouldn't be mentioning of women submitting, or leniency towards slave owning or a light sentence towards rape. My opponent automatically will win because the bible was made in a era where different genders and racist were discriminated against.

It's God's word, not what the people believed at that time.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Nah, not like that.

It's just that I believe those verses have been used wrongly by opponents of this view to prove their point. I want to see if I can effectively argue against the verses. It's not like arguing there's no Noah's flood.

I like fair debates, which is why I took out semantics. I wouldn't debate something that's obviously true.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Zealous1StaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh! I guess I don't need to offer a reason why con wins he just 'proves' it better... (temp vote btw.)
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Zealous1StaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately, while it pains me to do this to zealous, staerkels claim that the resolution is inherently skewed goes largely unrefuted. While it's true that he shouldn't have accepted if it is, it legitimately sounds like this was an honest mistake. Furthermore, if the resolution is skewed as staerkels proves, that's a reason to negate it.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Zealous1StaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by bvand 5 years ago
bvand
Zealous1StaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: He made a more reasonable argument.