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

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.