The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Women Missionaries Societies--Home Missions--Head

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 62903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




The women missionaries societies and home missions societies should overseer and shepherd the church and un-church. Despite the great head of the churches decisions and administrations, we are all one body in Jesus Christ [Roman 12;5]. The missions for the church and the missions for the un-church or the church and un-church for the mission. All hail and heaven, Jesus Christ is the head.


Onto another debate I suppose, very well.

I will, again, use biblical quotes in my argument to show that your religion is against this very idea.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Just this verse immediately proves my point, but I aim for completeness.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing

Here the bible demands women be silent and subservient to men. It doesn't allow women to be the head of anything that a man is apart of, so your idea would go against the very book you live by.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

My final one and it just repeats what the others say.
Debate Round No. 1


Jesus the great king and head of the churches, sit at the right hand of the Father and is second in authority in the Trinity. I am of the mind and opinions that Christ has all powers, touches to some degree, all and every things. He, being to my understanding subject only to his Father and our God. Thus, my position in this argument is that Jesus is the head of the women missions and home missions. The church and the unchurched, not specifically the builders, but the bodies.


After reading that over and over, I can just barely make out a counter argument, but it's not enough to actually count as one and I can only offer so much benefit of the doubt.

Because I refuse to forfeit, I will continue.

What exactly do you mean by un-church? A non-church? A building that's not a church? So the missionaries should be head of places like Starbucks? That's not a very good idea, the Starbucks company is more powerful than any church by virtue of having more money.
Debate Round No. 2


Wheater this argument is directed toward the men or the women votes, we will be judge as either being right or wrong. When our societies decides to cast their votes in an unrighteous manner, it cannot exist. For, God and Jesus judges the righteous and the unrighteous. Pretending we do not understand only indicates our desire to not use a good conscientious. Therefore, church and unchurch defines the bodies. The bodies within the building or the bodies without the building and without the head builder. Being obediance to the faith will not only heal nations, but also women missionaries and home mission societies.


It's clear you're wanting to preach your ideals rather than provide a convincing argument. I recommend reading other religious debates to see some examples of how you might formulate your argument.

My argument from the previous round still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 3 years ago
Excellent point, Atmas.

I await your response, Ellisangel, to a debate on the Biblicity of Bigfoot (also known as the Abominable Swamp Slob. I will let you figure out what the initials spell out), provided ThirdCaliber does not soundly trounce me. If you do not response, you will have less credibility than Bill Murray after "Garfield".
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Apparently Chick-Fila is a Christian organization, and their chicken isn't very holy tasting :p
Posted by mightbenihilism 3 years ago
Atmas raises an interesting point: how would a thoroughly Christianized Starbucks run by missionaries affect the quality of the product, price and service?

I don't like a lot of tomfoolery with my coffee, so I never bother with Starbucks when I can get good coffee from McDonalds (without organic ox-milk, pepperwort and martian sugar-glider fuzz, or whatever other weird things Starbucks puts into theirs). I think a Christianized Starbucks would focus more on austere but intense flavors (ala Calvinism), and would minimize the choices (which is a good thing). The service would probably be better, and the price as well.

But then again, I prefer to buy coffee from McDonalds when I'm out.

After this debate is over I will challenge Ellisangel to prove that McDonald's coffee is not inspired by the Holy Spirt.
Posted by mightbenihilism 3 years ago

You should accept my challenge about the Biblical veracity of big foot. Or do you believe big foot is Biblical? I ask this because most Christians I've met tell me that Bigfoot is unbiblical. I would be glad to also meet a Christian who acknowledges the existence of Bigfoot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ... what did I just read from pro? Was that through a G-translate or something?