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

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.