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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.