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

It has been very enjoyable. I will now commence with my final rebuttals. GenesisWhile 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. ExodusI 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. DeuteronomyPRO 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 TestamentI 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 NoteSeeing 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 AdditionOnce 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 20:16This 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.