The Instigator
Jegory
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

The Bible states women should be less important in society than men

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 2 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Started: 6/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,540 times Debate No: 34673
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (2)

 

Jegory

Con

PLEASE NOTE: I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you find a way to accept this debate, you forfeit all 7 points. If you wish to debate this topic, please inquire in the comments if you meet the criteria, listed below.

Criteria

1. You must have in-depth knowledge of the Bible.

2. You must have completed AT LEAST three serious* debates.

3. You must have won AT LEAST ONE of these debates.

If you do not reach this criteria, I am afraid I cannot let you accept this debate. If you do, please express your interest in the comments.

*Casual, satirical or humourous debates will be assessed to see if they classify as "serious debates".

Definitions

BIBLE - Both the Old and New Testaments. When quoting, please use either the NIV or KJB.

MEN/WOMEN - Referring to adults, NOT children.

LESS IMPORTANT - Occupy a smaller role in society.

SOCIETY - Modern day society.

Rules

For Debaters

1. PRO will be arguing that the Bible states women should be less important in society than men. CON will be refuting their arguments.

2. Therefore, PRO has full BoP.

3. The round format is as follows:

Round 1: PRO is to begin their arguments immediately
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final rebuttals and closing statements; no new arguments are to be presented this round.

This may not be changed throughout the debate.

4. Forfeits result in all 7 points going to the other debater.

5. No insulting or offensive remarks and no trolling.

If you wish to change any of these rules, inquire in the comments before PRO has submitted their arguments for Round 1.

If either debater breaks any of these rules, all 7 points should be awarded to the other.

For Voters

Conduct: This field should remain unvoted unless either debater breaks rule 5.

S&G: This should not be voted on unless either debater's argument is completely incomprehensible.

Better arguments: This should go to the debater who presented the best arguments.

Sources: This field should remain unvoted .

In case of a forfeit: All 7 points should be awarded to the other debater.

Any deviation from these rules will be considered a votebomb.


I look forward to a very interesting debate!! Please inquire in the comments if you wish to accept.
Magicr

Pro

I’d like to thank Jegory for initiating this debate. In it, I intend to present passages from both the Old and New Testaments which highlight the Bible’s view that women should be less important in society than men.

It should be noted that this debate is not in any way, shape, or form, about the Bible’s validity and accuracy, or the existence of a god. The sole concern of this debate is whether the Bible makes a certain claim.

My opponent has chosen to define society as modern society. It is easily recognized, however, in light of things like Psalm 100:5, which states “For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations,” and Psalm 119:160 which states: “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal,” that the Bible sets itself up to be true for eternity, which includes modern society.

Enough preliminary stuff, let’s get on with it!

Old Testament Misogyny

Nearly From the Beginning...
Right from the start of the whole shebang, we see that God creates women for man’s needs. Genesis 2:18: “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” This demonstrates that the woman’s role should be to serve her husband. Subservience, is clearly a lesser than.

Not long after that, in the following chapter, God decrees that women are to be ruled over by their husbands. Genesis 3:16: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Once again, and even more explicitly, we see that women are to be subservient.

Moving Right Along...

There’s lots more goodies in Genesis, but let’s get on to some of the really good stuff in other parts of the OT.

Exodus 20:17: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

According the previous passage, wives are their husbands’ property, they belong to him. If that isn’t diminutive of women’s status, then I’m not sure what is.

Throughout Exodus, there are numerous examples of women being treated in society in lesser ways than their male counterparts. Exodus 21:24 gives one such example, as it discusses the way women and men in slavery are to be treated: “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.”

There Are Really So Very Many Examples.

Throughout the OT there are a vast number of places where women are treated less than men in society from commandments in Deuteronomy which treat women’s sexual liberties and consent to marry different from men’s, Deuteronomy 22:28-19 for example, to stories which demonstrate these misogynistic principles, which demonstrate no punishment for the transgressions that would possibly put women to death.

New Testament Goodies

While the OT provides some fine examples of the Bible’s unequal treatment of women, the NT really explicitly affirms the resolution being debated.

Affirming Women’s Submissiveness and the Genesis Account

1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians: 11:8: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” This affirms the view from Genesis that women are subservient to men.

Women Are To Be Less Than Their Husbands and Men in General

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Women should remain silent in the churches They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their won husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

This passage is quite clear: Women should be treated as less than men.

1 Timothy 2:11-13: “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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

Once again, an explicit statement that women are to be treated as submissive to men.

Ephesians 5:22-24: “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 eh is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Same old, same old.

Colossians 3:18 (Titled “Instructions for Christian Households in the NIV): “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as if fitting in the Lord.”

In Conclusion

I have offered numerous examples from both OT and NT which demonstrate that women are to be seen in society as less than men.

The resolution is affirmed.

Debate Round No. 1
Jegory

Con

I thank Magicr for accepting this debate. I will now begin my rebuttals.

Old Testament Misogyny

Nearly from the Beginning...

"Genesis 2:18: "The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.""

Indeed, it is not good for a man to be alone. However, God created another human to serve Adam; he could, so easily, have given Adam a special type of animal to serve him. Instead, he created women from man, implying that they are one and the same, and equal in the sight of God.

Moving Right Along...

"Exodus 20:17: "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.""

This statement doesn't explicitly say that women are the property of the man. Indeed, it mentions "anything that belongs to his neighbour" after mentioning his wife.

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.""

Here, it is obvious the slave-owners wanted only the best slaves. The man going free shows that men were of less value as slaves and able to be let free while the women were kept to work. Rather than putting women down, it actually elevates them as it shows exactly how useful they can be.

There are really so very many Examples

"[there are] commandments in Deuteronomy which treat women"s sexual liberties"

There are also rules about sexual liberties for men. The book of Leviticus is very against homosexuality:

"If a man has sexual relationships with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death." - Lev. 20:13

DISCLAIMER: I do not agree with the passage above in any way, shape or form; it is merely used as an example of the restrictions of a man's sexual liberties.

This passage shows that men who are homosexual should be put to death, which is an extremely drastic measure. Interestingly, lesbianism isn't mentioned at all [1].

In addition, there are other rules against adultery, bestiality and having sex with other members of the family.

New Testament Goodies

Affirming Women"s Submissiveness and the Genesis Account

"1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.""

However, God does not rule over the man. God has given us free will to choose whether we worship him or not and it is clear that man should give women the same choice as he is the same to the woman as God is to him.

"1 Corinthians: 11:8: "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." This affirms the view from Genesis that women are subservient to men."

Linking in with the previous quote, in the same way man was created for God. Man should treat his wife in the same way God treats him, ie giving him free will and letting him do whatever he wants.

Women Are To Be Less Than Their Husbands and Men in General

"1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Women should remain silent in the churches They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their won husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.""

I'd argue that this passage is saying that men should listen to their wives. Rather than assuming authority which they did not have at that time, their husbands should speak on behalf of their wives.

"1 Timothy 2:11-13: "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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.""

Again, this is warning women against assuming authority they do not have.

"Ephesians 5:22-24: "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 eh is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.""

Again, here man is put in the same position as God. God is loving, even sacrificing his own son to save the Church, the body of Christ; is this passage saying that the man should not do the same for a woman?

On a general note

Many of these quotes are merely warning women against assuming authority they did not have in an extremely sexist society. In the same way, the Ten Commandments were put in place merely to show how bad we are compared to God; we cannot help breaking (at least some) of them. The commandments are guides for how not to get into trouble. In the same way, these passages are guidelines for how women can be treated well in the society they lives in rather than a modern-day society. If the Bible was written again today, don't you think it would be a bit different?

In addition

"The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." - Gen. 2:22-24

Here, it clearly implies that man and women are to become one. Therefore they should become one body and equal. The Bible clearly states that all parts of the body are necessary in 1 Cor. 12:12-24, so the women and the man are equals in one body.

Thank you for your patience. Please present your rebuttals.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Magicr

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

In his rebuttals, Con attempts to stretch the possible interpretations as much as he can to fit his point of view, however, most of the time his interpretations seem much less plausible.



Old Testament

Genesis

First, Con fails to respond to the damning passage I cited from Genesis. I will reiterate that passage:

Genesis 3:16: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

This is undeniably God giving man authority over woman. Additionally, this sentence can shed light on our interpretation of the previous passage I cited from Genesis.

Exodus

In response to Exodus 21:24, Con makes the ridiculous case that a society which keeps women enslaved more than men shows how much that society values the women. While, it might show how much that society values the work the women do as slaves, it certainly doesn’t demonstrate a respect for the women themselves. I hope my opponent understands this important differentiation between valuing the slave labor somebody does and valuing that person’s liberties. If he doesn’t, perhaps he ought to try and imagine what it would be like to work as an unappreciated slave during Biblical times.

Deuteronomy

Con’s final OT response was that my argument about “commandments in Deuteronomy which treat women’s sexual liberties and consent to marry different from men’s,” is flawed because there are also restrictions placed on men’s sexual liberties that are not placed on women’s.

His response, however, fails to really address my argument. I did not argue that women had restrictions and men did not; I argued that men and women have different restrictions, something Con has not disputed. If I can show that the restrictions placed on women are more degrading than those placed on men, I have done what I need to do.

The big difference between many of the restrictions placed on women and men is that men’s restrictions are general “Don’t do this,” restrictions which give a man the liberty to decide what to do. Things like Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (I accidentally wrote 28-19 in the previous round. It should be 28-29.), however, do not give women any choice.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, He shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

Obviously, if the woman is raped, she by definition had no liberty in making the choice. And, instead of properly punishing the rapist, the Bible goes ahead and violates the woman’s rights even more by forcing her into a marriage when cannot be broken. As far as I’m aware, no such laws apply to men.

New Testament

Con responds to the Biblical analogy from 1 Corinthians 11:3 that

Man : Woman :: God : Man

by saying that since God gives us free will, this is telling men to give their wives free will. If this is true, however, is Con suggesting that if the women do not do as men want, the men can give the women terrible punishment, as God can punish humans such as in Deuteronomy 11:26-28?

It is clear that God has authority over humans, thus men have authority over women.

Regarding the second quote from 1 Corinthians,

“For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man,”

Con acts as if this quote is saying the same thing as the previous quote, when in reality it makes a different claim. This quote, does not make that analogy, instead it explicitly stating that women were created for men, a claim for which Con has not given a response.

The third quote from 1 Corinthians,

“Women should remain silent in the churches They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their won husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church,”

receives another ridiculous handling form Con. Con argues that this quote is saying that husbands should listen to their wives, when there is nothing in this passage that indicates that at all.

He states that this passage warns women not to try to assume authority which they did not have at the time. For once, he actually seems to get it. The passage is telling women not to try to take on authority which they did not have. The key is that this is authority which men did have, thereby demonstrating the point that women were lower than men.

Perhaps he thinks the key here is the “did” rather than “do” part of his analysis. I answered this issue of timeliness, however, in my opening arguments where I quoted several parts of the Bible which affirm that its words are “Not of an age, but for all time.” (Apologies to Ben Johnson and William Shakespeare.) Thus, it is his unbased assertion against my Scriptural citations.

Con’s response to 1 Timothy 2:11-13 is the same, I therefore extend that analysis to this point.

Finally, Con correctly identifies Ephesians 5:22-24 as making the same analogy as the first quote from 1 Corinthians. Once, I again, I plead the points I presented there.

On a General Note

Con argues here “If the Bible was written again today, don't you think it would be a bit different?”

My honest answer to that question is yes. Yes, I think the Bible would be written differently if it were written today. But that’s because I think the Bible is a purely human written document, not a divinely influenced document.

This debate is not about whether or not the Bible is accurate, whether it is written by humans or by a god. This debate is merely about the contents of the Bible. The Bible gives itself divine authority and, as I argued, allows its words to have eternal truth. Therefore, this debate must deal with the words of the Bible with such authority of truth, making my opponent’s point a moot one in this debate.

In Addition

Con finally argues that Genesis 2:22-24 demonstrates that men and women become one, and are therefore to be valued equally.

Those verses do not, however, refer to their place in society. These verses merely refer to a man and a woman becoming one in marriage. The relationship between a married man and woman is farther discussed in the various passages I’ve cited.

In Conclusion

I’ve clearly fulfilled my burden of proof. I looked forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Jegory

Con

I thank PRO for his response.

Genesis

I apologise for missing that quote.

"Genesis 3:16: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.""

This quote is warning against adultery. The "desire for your husband" is showing the fact that a woman should love her husband and not love anyone else.

Exodus

"In response to Exodus 21:24, Con makes the ridiculous case that a society which keeps women enslaved more than men shows how much that society values the women."

This was not showing that woman are more or less important per se, merely that women are valuable and do work as hard as men, showing they should have a higher place in society.

"Con"s final OT response was that my argument about "commandments in Deuteronomy which treat women"s sexual liberties and consent to marry different from men"s," is flawed because there are also restrictions placed on men"s sexual liberties that are not placed on women"s."

Again, this is warning against adultery. PRO failed to read the passage beforehand:

"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving of death." - Deut. 22:25 and 26a

The other parts of this passage deal only with consensual sex; this is clear as it included rape as another section entirely. In any case, in the other cases the man must die as well; this passage does nothing to show how women are to be treated as less than men.

"Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, He shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.""

If a woman is raped, there is a very good chance she will have a baby. That is why the man must marry her; bringing up a child on one's own would have been frowned upon in Biblical society and would have been too much hardship for the woman to bare.

New Testament

Man : Woman :: God : Man

"is Con suggesting that if the women do not do as men want, the men can give the women terrible punishment, as God can punish humans such as in Deuteronomy 11:26-28?"

God doesn't make rules so we stick to them absolutely. The Ten Commandments were only written to show how bad and sinful we were compared to God. Even if we break any of these rules, God is quick to bless and forgive; seeing as we are "made in God's image", shouldn't we be like God in that a man forgives his wife?

"Con acts as if this quote is saying the same thing as the previous quote, when in reality it makes a different claim. This quote, does not make that analogy, instead it explicitly stating that women were created for men"

I still argue that this quote does, in fact, link in with the previous statement. We are created to worship and serve God, in the same way that women should "serve" their husbands. Are you saying that men should view women as any less than God does man?

"The third quote from 1 Corinthians...receives another ridiculous handling form Con. Con argues that this quote is saying that husbands should listen to their wives, when there is nothing in this passage that indicates that at all."

I apologise for misreading that passage. In any case, it still shows that men should still listen to their wives and treat them with respect.

"He states that this passage warns women not to try to assume authority which they did not have at the time. For once, he actually seems to get it. The passage is telling women not to try to take on authority which they did not have"

PRO seems to have completely misunderstood my point, so I will clarify. These passages are warning women against assuming authority they do not have so as to be accepted in Biblical society. The society they lived in was completely sexist and would not have accepted the fact that women should have the same rights as men in church. This is not an absolute rule; note the "should", rather than must. This quote only addresses Biblical society rather than modern-day society, which this debate is addressing.

On a General Note

PRO seems to have ignored my points in this section, apart from the question at the very end. My point was that the Bible was written specifically for the Biblical age, not modern-day society.

In addition

"Con finally argues that Genesis 2:22-24 demonstrates that men and women become one, and are therefore to be valued equally."

Again, PRO has skirted around my point. Man and woman are to become one flesh, meaning one cannot function without the other. How does this not show that each should be treated equally in society?

I look forward to PRO's response.
Magicr

Pro


I’d like to thank my opponent for this debate.



Genesis



My opponent attempts to respond to the previously dropped quote from Genesis 3:16, stating that in telling women that their desire should be for their husband, it is about adultery. While this may very well be what the first clause of the sentence may be about, Con completely ignores the second clause of the sentence “...and he will rule over you.” Unfortunately, since this is my final round, I will be unable to respond to any attempts Con may make to undo the damage to his case done by this quote. It is an explicit statement that men are to rule over their wives. This in and of it’s self affirms the resolution.



Exodus



Con repeats the fallacy he previously made in response to the quote about female vs. male slaves, merely repeating his mistaken case while ignoring the reasoning behind my rebuttal.



I argued that wanting to keep women as slaves more than men may have shown that the work they did was valued (though I doubt this is the reason men and women were treated differently), but it did demonstrate them being valued less as individual people with rights. This argument went unanswered.



Additionally, the passage gives no evidence that women would be kept because they were more valued in their work. If anything, a man’s work would be considered to be greater.



Enslaving a group of people more based solely on the fact that they are a member of that group is strong evidence that that member's of that group are valued less.



Once again, I will unfortunately not be able to offer a response to my opponent should he attempt to challenge this. Nevertheless, he had his chance and he did not take it.



Deuteronomy



Con’s response here fails to fully respond to the evidence offered. He argues that the passage I presented stating that an unmarried woman who is raped must be forced to marry her rapist is balanced out by other passages that are actually against adultery. Or perhaps he is arguing that the passage I cited is against adultery. Either way, his jumbled reasoning is flawed reasoning.



Presenting the previous passage, 22:25 and 26a which states that if a married or engaged woman is engaged and is raped, the man is punished with death, Pro argues that this shows that the section is about adultery.



Given that the party guilty of wrongdoing is the one who receives the punishment, 22:25 and 26a can be viewed as neutral, as it neither hurts nor helps my case.




But this does not make up for the fact that the passage I cited forces a woman who also “has committed no sin,” into a marriage. In fact, Con does not dispute the fact that the passage treats women differently and lesser than men. Instead he offers a red herring by saying that the measures are taken to ensure everything is alright if a baby results from the rape. Whether or not that is the case, the passage clearly treats the woman as less.




New Testament



Somehow, Con has conceived of the ridiculous notion that God doesn’t really care if we obey His laws. “God doesn't make rules so we stick to them absolutely. The Ten Commandments were only written to show how bad and sinful we were compared to God. Even if we break any of these rules, God is quick to bless and forgive; seeing as we are ‘made in God’s image,’ shouldn’t we be like God in that a man forgives his wife?”



I don’t know where this notion is coming from, but it is clearly contradicted by the Bible’s interpretation, which is the interpretation that this debate is based upon. Deuteronomy 18:15-68 is extremely clear about what happens to those who do not obey God. I don’t have room to include the whole thing, but I’ll try to point out some highlights.



“15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:



16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.


17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.


18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.


19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.


20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.



21 The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess.


22 The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies.


26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.


30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit.”


Here’s the rest for those interested: http://www.biblegateway.com...



Sound forgiving?


This passage completely rebukes my opponent’s view that God does not punish those who disobey him.


By the analogies presented in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:22-24, a man has this kind of authority over his wife. And when I say this kind of authority, I mean an awful lot of authority.



Next, Con continues to insist that the next quote, ““For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man,” makes the same analogy as that man is to woman as God is to man, however it is clear it does not. This quote merely states that a woman’s purpose is to serve man. Nevertheless, if Con wishes to argue that the Bible says that men should treat women as God treats man, he is more than welcome to. I just hope he reads all of Deuteronomy 28.



Regarding the third passage from the NT, Con says that even though it says that women are less than men in society, it shows that men are to respect their husbands. The passage says no such thing and Con has completely ignored the way the quote affirms the resolution.



Con’s final point here is that quotes such as this warn women against authority they do not have and since today’s society society is different from a Biblical society, they are not applicable. I have already dealt with this issue numerous times, and Con has failed to respond sufficiently to the Biblical quotes I initially presented demonstrating that the Biblical is not tied down to any particular time or society.


Con’s General Note


I only responded to the last part of this section of Con’s argument as that was the only section with any substance. I have also dealt in this round with his claim that God does not care if we don’t obey him. Nevertheless, Con still fails to address the evidence I presented against his claims, and he simply makes bare, Biblically contradicted, statements.



In Addition


I’m not sure why Con thinks the passage refers to anything other than marriage or intercourse in using the wording “one flesh.” The context of the passage in describing the course of a mans’ life as he leaves his father and mother to join in one flesh, i.e. marriage, makes it clear that this is what is being discussed. And I have presented Biblical evidence that married men are to be superior to their wives.



Conclusion


The resolution is overwhelmingly affirmed.


Debate Round No. 3
Jegory

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It has been very enjoyable.

I will now commence with my final rebuttals.

Genesis

While I do agree that this point was quite hard to counter, I have found an alternative to the literal meaning. A monarch rules over you, but that does not mean you do whatever they command; they make the rules and the women ae expected to obey. However, a monarch is still expected to listen to his subjects and look after them; in the same way, men should expect their wives to obey the rules set down by the state but also respect and love them.

Exodus

I merely meant that, in the fact they work harder and better, they seem to be more important. Those who work hardest get to the top and this is shown in this quote; the women work hardest, so should be valued higher.

Deuteronomy

PRO seems to have wilfully neglected the fact that a fatherless child, as well as a husband-less pregnant woman, would have been viewed as dirt in society. Therefore, having a husband, whether they loved each other or not, would have raised the women's status and made her have a higher position in SOCIETY.

New Testament

I didn't mean that God doesn't care about his rules. I meant that, in the sense we TRY to obey them but fail, we cannot help breaking them and God understands that. We are not perfect and he does allow for that. In the same way, men should forgive their wives if they reak the rules presented to them by the state.

PRO also argues that God does punish those who disobey him. However, God forgave the people of Nineveh in the book of Jonah, even though they were ungodly and selfish, breaking the Commandments.


The Bible says that we are to serve and worship God. Using the example above, God can and is forgiving and men should treat their wives as such.


The passage states that women "should ask their won husbands at home", therefore they should expect an answer. The men should respect their wife's questions and answer them accordingly.


The Bible was written for those at that time. PRO has failed to adhere to the points I made about how a book decreeing women were to be better than man would have been discarded. Whether it was written by man or by God through man, the Bible wanted to be read; they would have made it "socially acceptable" for that day and age.

General Note

Seeing as PRO neglected to respond to most of my points in this area, I will leave this section blank. Please view it as part of the next section.

In Addition

Once again, PRO has ignored the fact that one part of the body cannot work without the other. The Bible makes numerous use of the words "intercourse", "sex", "sexual" and even "rape"; why does it use "one flesh" here if not to have a dual meaning (which I will explain below)?

The Bible is a bit like this. This "story" was made up by me and, I hope, explains how the Bible can be interpreted differently through the ages:

Imagine a fruit fell from the sky. This fruit is a passage from the Bible. But this isn't an ordinary fruit; it is the most succulent and juicy fruit you've ever seen. But there's only one problem; the skin is too tough to cut or bite through. Nevertheless, you lick off what juice oozes through the skin.

As time went on, the fruit remained as ripe and juicy as ever. As times changed, one man developed a blade harder than diamond and set about cutting through the fruit's tough skin. For the first time he could see the insides of the fruit. It fell into little segments that all tasted different.

Finally, the man reached the centre. At the heart of the fruit was a stone. The stone was plain and simple but tasted far better than any other piece. The man discarded the other segments and the skin and was keft with just the core of the fruit.


The skin shows how the people first saw passages from the Bible. They took it and, not being able to see what its true meanig was, took it at face value.

Each segment is how the passage can be split up; some bits look like they're showing one thing, other bits another.

The stone is the core message of the Bible. It may be plain and simple but nothing else matters; that is how the Bible should be seen, not by its skin or the different, juicy segments underneath.


I hope you enjoyed my little story :D. This shows how the Bible can't be taken at face value, as people would have first seen it, but that you need to see all the different possibilities of it to finally get to its core message. It seems PRO has mainly been arguing on the basis of the "skin", its face value, while didving beneath the surface reveals a much more complex meaning hidden from the eyes of a disapproving, sexist society very different from ours today.

And finally...

So the last shall be first, and the first last - Matthew 20:16

This doesn't only apply to the Kingdom of God; it applies to society as well. even those highest in society are servants of society and, as such, those who work hardest, the lowest in society, should be valued above all. Therefore, women should be equal to men in society.


I'd like to thank PRO for accepting this debate and being civil throughout. It has been very enjoyable and I hope we can debate together again soon.
Magicr

Pro

As agreed, no arguments will be posted in this round.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jegory 9 months ago
Jegory
Philophile: But the Bible doesn't say slavery is ok either. By your own admission, slavery is NOT mentioned in the Ten Commandments; how does this show it is right?
Posted by Philophile 9 months ago
Philophile
But god's standard says that human slavery is perfectly Ok, so we're wrong for abolishing slavery, which the ten commandments doesn't cover?
Posted by Jegory 9 months ago
Jegory
Philophile: No, it was put in place to show that we are not perfect. We like to think of ourselves as right all the time; looking at the Ten Commandments just shows how far we are from God's standards and how we really don't deserve to be with Him.
Posted by Philophile 9 months ago
Philophile
"the Ten Commandments were put in place merely to show how bad we are compared to God"

So God made the ten commandments just to make us feel like crap and show us how much better he is? You know what, it does kind of fit in with the whole "God's an @sshole" thing that many atheists say now that I think about it.
Posted by Jegory 10 months ago
Jegory
Thank you, Magicr, for debating this topic with me; it has been extremely enjoyable. I hope you enjoyed my little story :P
Posted by Jegory 10 months ago
Jegory
Magicr: That sounds alright to me. I'll send you the challenge asap.
Posted by Magicr 10 months ago
Magicr
The only thing I'd want changed is rather than saying that Pro is to forfeit the final round, which leaves some ambiguity as another rule states no forfeits, I'd say that Pro is to not make any arguments in the final round.
Posted by Magicr 10 months ago
Magicr
Jegory, yes I would accept this.
Posted by Legitdebater 10 months ago
Legitdebater
I'd be happy to accept this debate in maybe 2.5 weeks.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 10 months ago
MadCornishBiker
No God does nto make mistakes, but man does.

There are two different ways in whihc scripture was inspired.

Some part, mainly prophecy, were directly inspired, they are faultless, and were frequently given in vision..

Some parts are where God simply inspired someone to write about something. That may contain human error, though not in any significant was, especially if it is something that the writer was inspired to compile from the stories of others.

However the important thing is that despite what man has done to it, at the instigation or even inspiration, of Satan, scripture is still an integrated whole without one real contradiction and no significant errors that would affect the overall picture of the bible.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MacGruber 10 months ago
MacGruber
JegoryMagicrTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a far greater grasp of what he was arguing, as was apparent in his statements and rebuttals. Con had a few moments of good refutation, but most were open to interpretation and made no valid lasting points in the debate.
Vote Placed by wierdman 10 months ago
wierdman
JegoryMagicrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted Pro mainly because Pro's arguments were far more convincing. Con tried to refute Pro's arguments, but it just wasn't enough to take the win. In his first rebuttal, Con's conter-arguments where a bit convincing and some of them where really irrelevant to the debate.