The Bible is sexist.

Thank you for your counter-argument, Con. I’ve read it, and you have said nothing offensive or rude, so don’t worry about that. Your response to my Genesis argument was very thoughtful, but there are some flaws in your logic. You say that this isn’t sexist because God gave an equal punishment to Adam right after the one for Eve: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you,‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you;in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;and you shall eat the plants of the field.By the sweat of your face you shall eat breaduntil you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19) I have to admire the poetry of this passage, but I don’t see how starving, working, and death are exclusively limited to males. However, in the context of the story, Eve was more at fault here so she deserved more punishment; either way, that wasn’t my main point. It’s those 5 words: “he shall rule over you.” This is sexism, and since it comes from God, the Bible supports it. You say that “just because women and men have different roles, that does not mean that they have different values”. You go into greater detail later, so I’ll save my response. I hope I've been careful about remembering the context, because I try to avoid simply quoting bad-sounding verses. You request an example of a verse from the Old Testament which shows God supporting oppression of women, and I can certainly give you one. This is one of the Laws of Moses, which are said to have been handed down from God himself. It’s too long to quote fully here, but I’ll include it in my sources. [1] Basically, it’s rules for when a man suspects his wife of not being a virgin. If he accuses her falsely, nothing happens. If he is right, and this is the kicker, she is stoned to death. Men are expected to be virgins upon marrying, if they follow the Biblical laws, but they won’t be executed if they aren’t. You place a great deal of emphasis on the justice of God for punishing sin. I believe that having sex before marriage is a perfectly healthy, wise, and valid option. Even if you disagree and think a woman should remain pure until her wedding night, does she deserve death? Has she really brought it upon herself? Who am I to decide what is a sin and what isn’t? Whether or not it's a sin isn't the point. This debate isn’t about who decides what is good or evil, or even whether sexism is good or evil. This law from the Book of Deuteronomy is sexist, because it is prejudiced and discriminatory against women. As I said, there is no similar punishment for men who commit the exact same sin. And if you decide to call this a just law because God is your only standard for justice, fair enough. I'd counter that, by definition then, God is sexist, and so is the Bible's idea of justice. In response to my first NT quotation, you said “It was the custom in that time that men and women would sit in different areas of the church.” May I ask where you learned this? And I’d appreciate a source as well. Even if this is true, which I could see it being, there is no evidence that Paul was talking about this custom. I consulted the International Critical Commentary on the Bible, a highly respected academic commentary by scholars who study the Bible for a living, and it makes no mention of your interpretation. They do summarize the passage: “The women are to keep silence in the public services. They would join in the Amen (v. 16), but otherwise not be heard.” [2] And besides, if Paul's main goal was to keep from distractions, why does he focus on women? Surely there was at least one naughty young Corinthian guy who cracked jokes during the service. You said twice that just because men and women have different roles, that doesn't mean they have different values. What do you mean? Because if women are loved just as much as men in the eyes of God, fair enough, but that has nothing to do with their position in our world. Sexism doesn’t mean hating one gender, or liking it less than the other. Nor does it have anything to do with woman’s ultimate role in the universe. Let’s consult Merriam-Webster’s dictionary for a definition of sexism: “prejudice or discrimination based on sex.” The Bible is most definitely guilty of this. You’re right, the Bible gives different roles for men and women. But the role of woman is very obviously lesser in value. And if you say that it’s “different but equal” then we may need to pull up Merriam-Webster’s definition of equality too. According to the Bible, man rules over woman. The husband is the head of the wife like God is the head of the Church. No woman should teach or have any authority over a man. And yet you say, “Just because men are in authority does not make them superior.” Don’t those two words mean almost the exact same thing? If not, please explain to me the difference. And I will again direct you to Ephesians 5:23, which states as explicitly as possible that the husband is superior to the wife. Here, the husband probably isn't being called an inherently better human being, as you pointed out. But in practice? He is most definitely superior. Why do you think employees call their bosses their “superiors”? Because they have a greater purpose in God’s plan? Certainly not. Because they have more influence, and can tell them what to do. And women have the same relation to men in the Bible. “He NEVER said that a wife should obey a husband's every whim- the verse clearly establishes that Christ is above the husband, and therefore the women belong to him alone.” You are right about this, and I admit my mistake. However, while the Bible says a woman’s first loyalty should be to God (who, might I add, is male), her immediate second loyalty is to her husband. Men are not required to obey their wives at all, and in fact are encouraged to instruct them like teachers instructing foolish children. “There's this belief in our modern world that equality means that everyone is exactly the same, and if we acknowledge any difference between men and women, we are being sexist.” Is there? I agree that thinking such a thing is a load of foolishness, but who says that? You’re denouncing a position that may not exist, or is at least a very extreme one. I’ve taken a look at the verses you kindly cited for me, and they don’t contradict anything that I said. If anything, it helps my argument, because Titus 2:5 again tells women to be submissive to their husbands. I’m not saying that all wives should be bratty and catty and trying to undermine their lover. But a marriage should be a union of two free-thinking people, each of which has an equal voice and equal authority. And to be perfectly frank, believing that a husband should have authority over a wife, even if it’s just a “different role”, is sexist. And if one believes 1 Timothy 2:12 to be canon, they must condemn female college professors, CEOs, and politicians. I hope my opponent is prepared to do this. Con, I’d like to thank you again for such intelligent arguments and dedication to this debate. I know this is probably more of a sensitive topic for you than for me, so I apologize if anything I said ends up offending you. I promise that wasn't my intention. Good luck on Round 3! Sources:1. https://www.biblegateway.com...2. http://biblehub.com...