The Instigator
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
DrStrangeLuv
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
DrStrangeLuv
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,892 times Debate No: 15554
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

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.

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.

6. No semantics.

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.
DrStrangeLuv

Con

For this debate I think it would be good if we agree to focus on one denomination of Christianity. I was raised Catholic, and I have a good understanding of the religion.

I hold that much of this has to do with old traditions that held men as sexually superior to women. In the Middle Ages and the time until the present, the clergy have enjoyed a good amount of power. It has lessened over the centuries of course, but to have a woman hold the powers of the clergy in these times was unheard of and against common law in many areas. Clergy could own land, had a say in government, and just overall had a very influential leadership role. Women were not considered mentally capable of leadership, in many areas they couldn't own land and their representation in government was basically nil.

The Church is a very old entity and it holds onto traditions from its very beginning. To say that some of these traditions are archaic is plausible. But would religion, being basically a system to uphold these traditions, lose its message if some things were changed or amended? In the 60's, Vatican II reformed much of the way the church was run. For example: Mass is now spoken in the language of the land and priests face us when they conduct the Mass. Though some methods have changed, the overall message of the religion is still intact.

Now for some theology

No where in the Bible does Jesus say women cannot be priests. It has been assumed by the men reading the New Testament that Jesus did not want priestesses because none of his Apostles were women. To this, I claim Jesus knew having a woman spread his teaching was not possible, because women were just not respected enough. They had few rights, and bordered on being property. In today's world, while some women do suffer from inequality, it is safe to say that they can properly spread the word of Jesus, which has been one of love and forgiveness.

We do find women play an important role in Jesus' ministry though. Mary, his mother, was chosen by God to bring Christ into the world, but for some reason her descendants cannot bring His word into the world. Mary Magdalene was constantly by Jesus' side, witnessed his resurrection, and obviously was chosen by God to tell the Apostles of it, but for some reason her descendants are not allowed to spread the Good News.

It seems that the church has gotten too caught up in itself over the years, and forgets that the core teaching of Jesus has nothing to do with one's sex. I have heard all sorts of nonsense, such as "the church is a female and only men can marry females". The truth is, the Bible is open to interpretation, but however you go about things, its core message should be the same. And it just so happens that message has nothing to do with having a penis or not

1) Before I can proceed, I need my opponent to openly and clearly acknowledge that men and women are physically different, but completely equal (or should be) in terms of law, civil rights and mental capacity. I will cease this debate if my opponent reveals that he is a sexist.

2) I ask my opponent what he thinks the true message of his religion to be, and if women being pastors has any influence over this message.

3) Women are capable of being priests and leaders, and it is the tradition of sexism that permeates the church which does not allow them to do so.

4) Allowing women to be priests could reveal some great talent. Also, it could increase the available amount of priests, and I know the Catholic church has a shortage of them.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealous1

Pro

Oh well, I managed to get another annoying debate started. Just my luck.

By Christian I mean CHRISTIAN, not CATHOLIC. It's obvious that catholics believe women are high and mighty. I want to debate about the Bible, not what Catholics believe.

Secondly, my opponent said a certain word which I shall not repeat. I would ask that he keeps foul language/words out of this.

Lastly, Con tries to set his own standards for the round. Since when can he do that? By accepting the debate he accepts my terms, not his own.

My opponent is not trying to argue whether the Bible teaches this or not. He's trying to argue whether it's beneficial and saying that it's sexist to not allow women to teach. I clearly stated I want this to be about the Bible, not about what catholics believe and "priests".

Con has completely tried to change the meaning of what I wanted to debate on. Please vote him down for this.

To Con directly: Please just forfeit and forget this debate because clearly you aren't going to be debating what I set this to be.
Thank you.
DrStrangeLuv

Con

Catholics believe in the bible, my friend. If you read my argument, I put forth a few example of how man has interpreted the bible to suit his societal norms. I also brought up an area where women clearly do teach men by bringing the Good News. My opponent has not refuted any of these points, and the vote belongs to me.

"By Christian I mean CHRISTIAN, not CATHOLIC. It's obvious that catholics believe women are high and mighty. I want to debate about the Bible, not what Catholics believe."
--- Catholicism is the progenitor of all modern Christian sects. I think I made it clear in my previous argument that Catholics have a certain bias to what men and women can do in the church. I do not appreciate your blatant disrespect of my religion with your "high and mighty" statement.

"Secondly, my opponent said a certain word which I shall not repeat. I would ask that he keeps foul language/words out of this."
--- The only word that is at all controversial at all would probably be "penis". I don't believe I used it in an offensive context. Men have penises, it is a fact of life.

"Lastly, Con tries to set his own standards for the round. Since when can he do that? By accepting the debate he accepts my terms, not his own."
--- I need to know the extent of your bias before I begin to debate you and before this turns into an entirely different debate.

-----------------------------
Given the rules stated in round one by Pro, I have not deterred from any of them. I also ask that he be more explicit next time about what he wants to debate. My arguments base from the bible still stand, and I ask my opponent to forfeit himself if he wishes to end this debate now.
Debate Round No. 2
Zealous1

Pro

"High and mighty" was not meant to be disrespectful. It's just a fact.

The word is still something you can't throw out just because you want to. There was no need to say the word, you could have phrased it differently.

I don't get this "extent of my bias" thing. I just want to debate whether the Bible overall teaches that women should teach men.

And yes, I know very well that Catholics believe in the Bible. The thing is, Catholics tend to interpret it differently. (For example they believe in salvation by works rather than by faith, which is clearly not taught in the Bible. But that's a different debate).

-------------------------
My opponent still has not shown verses in the Bible that prove his point. I'm waiting for them, and until I get them we can squabble over insignificant things, but you should vote Pro because he isn't fulfilling the rule that he actually has to make an argument. We still have not debated... I'm waiting until Con does.
DrStrangeLuv

Con

I dunno I'm actually having fun debating this stuff.

Oh, I'm sorry if my religion actually wants you to be a good person AND act like a good person. Catholicism isn't entirely works based anyway, I was taught convicts could repent on death row if they truly did seek forgiveness.

This debate is flawed because I don't anyone who cares about the Bible and religion is going to give you an objectively based take on its interpretation.

Anyway, I didn't give the exact number for the verses, but rather demonstrated two very important things that cannot be overlooked. You did not state in your rules that verse quoting would be required.
Debate Round No. 3
Zealous1

Pro

Let's keep this debate apart from debating Catholicism, thank you very much.


"This debate is flawed because I don't anyone who cares about the Bible and religion is going to give you an objectively based take on its interpretation."

You know what? Too bad my opponent feels that way. I am the instigator and I am allowed to choose what to debate on. I want to debate whether the Bible teaches this or not, so that's what I'll do.

It is true that my opponent pointed some things out. But he needs to prove the Bible actually teaches that women can teach men in Church. He has only tried to refute whatever verses I might bring up with a logical argument about "old tradition" and "sexism".

Thus, Con has not fulfilled his burden of rebuttal.

Now, let us not waste this debate any longer. I will present two verses which prove my point.

1 Timothy 2:12-13

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Just take verse 12 first. This clearly proves my point. The Bible clearly states that women are not to teach men in church.

My opponent may make the argument of "tradition" or "sexism". That is why I included verse 13. It references creation as the reason for this statement. It is a principle, not tradition, not cultural. It is a rock solid verse which proves my point and Con can not refute.

But in case you want another verse, here's another one.

1 Corinthians 14:34



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



Farther along: Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.

This is stating my position, and stating that it is the Lord's command. Clearly even this verse alone is enough to prove my point.

Okay, so I have fulfilled my burden of proof: I needed to show a specific verse stating that women should not teach men. Con, on the other hand, has not fulfilled his burden. On this alone I ask that you vote Pro. Secondly, all of Con's speeches can not refute these verses. What follows after them qualifies them to be used in this way.

Alas, this is the last round of this debate. Since I am the instigator, Con gets the last word. But realize that what he says in the next speech, I can not refute since it is the last word. Please be watchful for new arguments. The only thing he may do is respond to what I've said in this round. That includes the verses. He may not bring up his own verses as he has failed to do so in the past rounds.

I would ask that you, as the voter, put personal bias aside on this issue. If you want, you can disregard all other rounds as we were arguing about catholicism rather than the actual debate at hand. Whether you believe my position or not, you must look at what we have written and see who has fulfilled their burden. Con has obviously not since he has not brought up any proof on his side, but I have. Con pretty much can not win since he has failed to bring up proof and he may not do so in the last round.

I would also encourage you to read this after you read Con's last word to see if he really refuted my verses. Even if he did, you should vote Pro because he has not even tried to fulfill his burden while I have.

Thank you very much for reading and voting on this debate. I thank also my opponent for what turned out to be more of a squabble about religions :)

DrStrangeLuv

Con

Let it be known that Pro did not attempt to refute my original contentions that: A) Mary brought God into the world B) Mary Magdalene is essentially a forgotten Apostle.

"1 Timothy 2:12-13

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

From this verse my opponent believes he has rock solid evidence that God has provided that women not teach men in church. The problem with this, and what I have been saying all along, is that it all depends on how you interpret the verses in the bible. To me, this verse states many things:

1) Women cannot teach men anything. Period.
2) Women are subordinate to men.
3) Women should not talk.

and finally, it proposes the untrue ideas that

4) human males were formed before females.
5) That because males were formed before females, they are naturally dominant. This is a prime example of tradition and sexism.

Pro has stated that I may not bring forth any new verses or arguments for the reason that he can no longer refute them. I feel as if Pro is trying to draw debaters into something which is essentially preordained as truth in his mind. We could go back and forth all day with quotes, the bible is full of contradictions, but there is nothing I can do to refute this statement because meanings can be twisted. It is obvious not everything should be taken as fact from the bible because of this, and I hope that is apparent to the voters as well.

I thank Pro for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Some people just don't understand... sigh.
Posted by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
How can you say you're not advocating for sexism? You're pro on a debate that says women shouldn't be able to do the same things as men.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
I am not advocating sexism. I am in no way sexist.

And I'm white. I didn't get mad because I'm black, I did because it's wrong and racism leads to ugly things.
Posted by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
Zealous, I'm amazed how angry you got when there was a racist issue in the stereotype debate. You were so angry when someone called blacks stupid but now you're going to advocate the same thing but based on gender?
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Jillian, those are three of the worst vote reasons on this earth. a. What does that have to do with how you VOTE!?

b. They aren't Christian in the sense that they don't go to heaven. They're Christian in the sense that they are stuffed under that word as well. Plus, again, this has nothing to do with the debate on hand.

c. First, you're supposed to vote on the debate, not on your own bias about the issue. Secondly, my opponent didn't bring this up. Third, the Bible was inspired. God used the different men's writing style, but he wouldn't let heresies sneak into the pages since that's like God lying.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
"And, I believe the Bible in many many places is sexist. It would be completely unrealistic to believe that only men wrote it and didn't write it from the male perspective and their patriarchal culture."

That does not prove anything. We're not debating whether the Bible is that way. We're debating whether the Bible teaches it or not.
Posted by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
Pro lost for me because they're a. afraid of the word penis, evidentally, not sure why . . . b. somehow is under the impression that Catholics aren't Christian and c. doesn't recognize that the Bible is written by men from the male perspective in a culture ruled by men.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Um, okay... So you were saying that Catholics follow the Bible. You sure about that? Are you STILL catholic?
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 5 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
1) I didn't see anything about the church in your first verse. Your INTERPRETING it as that.
2) Sexism. I win.
3) But he said it, right? You see, your INTERPRETING the bible differently from what it says.
4) Yes.
5) It is.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
1) Women cannot teach men anything. Period.
2) Women are subordinate to men.
3) Women should not talk.

and finally, it proposes the untrue ideas that

4) human males were formed before females.
5) That because males were formed before females, they are naturally dominant. This is a prime example of tradition and sexism.

1) It is specifically talking about the Church in the context. Plus, this still proves my point whether it proves something else as well or not.
2) They basically are.
3) Of course this is untrue. It's just like when Jesus said to cut off your arm if it causes you to sin. Don't take it literally.
4) It's true! Are you about to ignore Genesis?
5) You're calling the Bible sexist.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
Zealous1DrStrangeLuvTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to con because pro didn't start building a case until round 4, complaining about con's arguments rather than counter them, and never countered the May Magdalene and core teachings argument. Conduct to con because of pro's rude and ironic treatment of Catholicism.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Zealous1DrStrangeLuvTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I agree with Con (seeing as im Catholic), I think it was too much narrowing of the resolution to have much offense. As such, I lean on the Pro side that the bible itself asserts that men should have a higher role (even though I disagree)
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Zealous1DrStrangeLuvTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ignored Con for most of the debate with ridiculous claims that Catholicism is not a form of Christianity. It is, and if he didn't want it used he should have said so. He did not bring any scripture in to the debate until it was too late for his opponent to present counterexamples, taking advantage of the rules. Arguments and conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by bvand 5 years ago
bvand
Zealous1DrStrangeLuvTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Zealous1 did not focus on the argument.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
Zealous1DrStrangeLuvTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con to begin with. And, I believe the Bible in many many places is sexist. It would be completely unrealistic to believe that only men wrote it and didn't write it from the male perspective and their patriarchal culture.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Zealous1DrStrangeLuvTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The con does not argue the bible; but one religion's religious belief. They openly reject biblical principle that Pro Presents, and are overall completely off topic and off base.