3/4 of Women are Inferior Debate
Before I begin, I'd like to mention how much I love when you guys come to me with your own opinions and interpretations on the topics I review. It's always great to get another argument to wrestle with, and if one of you comes to me with an argument that can't be refuted, well... I'll have to change my mind (gasp!). Anyway, in this rebuttal I'll be addressing only Phillip's arguments, but you can come up to me anytime you'd like and share your argument and I'll try to refute it, or you can leave a comment below. The more the merrier!
To start off, I want to remind all of you what my claims were: Women are inferior [to men], property [of men], and unclean [more so than men]. These were my claims, which I reinforced with God's actions and Laws as well as Paul's words. Phillip's job in his rebuttal was to refute these claims, but he seems to have failed in doing this. As we progress through all of his points, I will remind you that he has not disproved any of these claims, but rather came to conclusions that did not logically follow from his arguments (non sequiturs).
I'm just going to skip over the first two paragraphs because all he does is straw-man my arguments (I never claimed God hated women, nor did I say the story of Samson was sexist propaganda), propose that I'm using the Bible to promote my personal view of women(I'm not sexist/misogynistic, ladies. I probably support more women's rights than most of you do), and refuses to disprove my claims directly by stating why my interpretations are wrong. Because of this last point, I still stand by them as true, with their arguments in my first post, until proven wrong.
For his first claim derived from Genesis 1:27, I can totally understand his interpretation and do not disagree with it at all. I see no problem with this verse saying God created both man and woman in his own image. The truth, however, is that the Bible is so full of contradictions, you can find a passage that supports one claim,and then another passage supporting the exact opposite-hence why these debates are so interesting! For example, if we take it that man and woman is created in God's image-as was stated in Genesis 1:27-why is it that Paul says man was created in God's image and reflects God's glory, but woman reflects man's glory? Well, Paul's rationale is, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." This plays more into the common idea of the NT that women are subservient and under the authority of men, but it also shows that women reflect the glory of man; not God. This is at odds with the Genesis verse, and also with Galatians 3:28. This is why I hate when people use Paul against this argument. They say "Paul said we are all equal through Jesus Christ.", which he did say, while Paul ALSO says that women should wear head coverings during prayer because they are the glory of man, while men should NOT wear head coverings during prayer because they are the glory of God. Glory of man and glory of God are quite different, unequal distinctions; especially when it's the basis for women submitting to men! I actually encourage all of you to read the full section, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, because there is a fun tidbit at the end that says if you disagree with this notion of head coverings, you are opposed to what all the churches of God teach.
Phillip's examples of female leaders and prophets of Israel is where the illogical conclusions are found. In listing off these important female figures, he claims that "Daniel's really having problems with his "property of men and not human beings" narrative now," What he fails to realize is that just because women lead Israel at certain times and fulfilled God's agenda, it does not logically follow that they aren't property of men and not human beings. God also used a talking donkey to fulfill His agenda, so obviously there isn't a strict criteria to be met in order to serve God's will and be one of God's pawns. Women being leaders and prophets does not disprove my claim; women can still be property of men and do God's work just as a donkey can still be property of men and do God's work. Don't be mistaken here though; I'm not equating women to donkeys (even the rare talking ones). I'm merely showing how you don't have to be equal to a man in status in order to serve God's will.
Phillip makes more illogical jumps, such as when he says "We have the story of Mary, mother of Jesus.", to which I say "so what?" Jesus was born of a woman, therefore women are equal to men? What conclusion do we draw from the obvious assertion that people are born from females? I can tell you that no conclusion can be drawn that disproves my claims! Again, he implies another illogical conclusion when he says "We have the stories of the female followers of Christ, who became the first missionaries when they spoke of His resurrection." And similarly, "so what?" Women were walking by when they found Jesus' tomb open, and later told others. There is no logical conclusion to draw from this that disproves my claims in the very least! As for Jesus saving an adulteress, I have no response. Good on you, Jesus, for sparing this sinful woman! But this once again does not disprove any of my claims. The Church being female...I have no idea how to react to this horrible example. It's like claiming that since the word "spoon" in Spanish is feminine, by not eating with a spoon I am being sexist. I'm baffled that this was even included...
At the end, Phillip comes to this conclusion: "Daniel is wrong. These are not our views, they’re not the views of Jesus, and they're most certainly not the views of God." How he could possibly come to this conclusion despite disproving none of my Scripture-based arguments is a mystery; especially given that none of his arguments logically suggested any contrary opinions-with the exception of Genesis 1:27. I'm hoping that after reading this, some of you out there will see the power that willful ignorance has; denying well-grounded claims while affirming illogical ones. Please, people, try to keep an open mind. Most of you probably read Phillip's rebuttal and simply agreed due to confirmation bias-the tendency to accept ideas that coincide with ours and reject others. I'm telling you to look at each argument objectively and judge based off of actual logic and reason rather than hold onto unreasonable explanations. Thanks for reading, guys, if you got this far. I appreciate being heard :)
Phillip's examples of female leaders and prophets of Israel is where the illogical conclusions are found. In listing off these important female figures, he claims that "Daniel's really having problems with his "property of men and not human beings" narrative now," What he fails to realize is that just because women lead Israel at certain times and fulfilled God's agenda, it does not logically follow that they aren't property of men and not human beings. God also used a talking donkey to fulfill His agenda, so obviously there isn't a strict criteria to be met in order to serve God's will and be one of God's pawns. Women being leaders and prophets does not disprove my claim; women can still be property of men and do God's work just as a donkey can still be property of men and do God's work. Don't be mistaken here though; I'm not equating women to donkeys (even the rare talking ones). I'm merely showing how you don't have to be equal to a man in status in order to serve God's will.
 |
| God: You were useful, but I'm afraid I can't make you an official priest... |
Phillip makes more illogical jumps, such as when he says "We have the story of Mary, mother of Jesus.", to which I say "so what?" Jesus was born of a woman, therefore women are equal to men? What conclusion do we draw from the obvious assertion that people are born from females? I can tell you that no conclusion can be drawn that disproves my claims! Again, he implies another illogical conclusion when he says "We have the stories of the female followers of Christ, who became the first missionaries when they spoke of His resurrection." And similarly, "so what?" Women were walking by when they found Jesus' tomb open, and later told others. There is no logical conclusion to draw from this that disproves my claims in the very least! As for Jesus saving an adulteress, I have no response. Good on you, Jesus, for sparing this sinful woman! But this once again does not disprove any of my claims. The Church being female...I have no idea how to react to this horrible example. It's like claiming that since the word "spoon" in Spanish is feminine, by not eating with a spoon I am being sexist. I'm baffled that this was even included...
 |
| Summary of Phillip's rebuttal |
At the end, Phillip comes to this conclusion: "Daniel is wrong. These are not our views, they’re not the views of Jesus, and they're most certainly not the views of God." How he could possibly come to this conclusion despite disproving none of my Scripture-based arguments is a mystery; especially given that none of his arguments logically suggested any contrary opinions-with the exception of Genesis 1:27. I'm hoping that after reading this, some of you out there will see the power that willful ignorance has; denying well-grounded claims while affirming illogical ones. Please, people, try to keep an open mind. Most of you probably read Phillip's rebuttal and simply agreed due to confirmation bias-the tendency to accept ideas that coincide with ours and reject others. I'm telling you to look at each argument objectively and judge based off of actual logic and reason rather than hold onto unreasonable explanations. Thanks for reading, guys, if you got this far. I appreciate being heard :)
Once again I find myself commenting on this humorous, well-written, controversial blog. First off, I would like to say that this blog is well-written, and your writing style includes a good dose of humor that helps with proving your point on this serious topic. Despite the positive aspects of your blog, I disagree with just about everything you have ever said (respectfully). Well, that may be a bit of an overstatement. This post specifically is well done because it functions well as a rebuttal. You spend time disproving Phillip's side of the argument rather than proving your own, which you already spent time on in your assertion. You did a good job disproving Phillip's points, despite some inconsistencies that I'll go into later. First I want to discuss some of your original points and why they're wrong. Specifically, I'll discuss your take on Sodom and Gomorrah, which I find to be the exact opposite of a story "against women" for lack of a better term. In your original post, you describe Lot offering his daughters to be raped in place of angels sent by God, and then discuss how this proves Lot has bad morals. I would disagree, mainly because you neglected to tell the rest of the story. Here's how the story ends: the townspeople are offered Lot's daughters, basically as sacrifices in place of the angels. The townspeople, however, refuse the daughters, and will only settle for the angels. So Lot and the angels decide "Hey, let's just try to escape this pickle we're in!" So Lot tells his sons-in-law, pledged to marry his daughters, to go with him out of the city, with his daughters. Lot wants to take his sons-in-law, but they think he's joking and stay, so Lot escapes instead with only his daughters and wife. Then fire, salt, and death all happen, and the story ends. I find the story to be similar to Abraham and Isaac, the story in which God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in order to prove his dedication to God. God never let Abraham kill his son, but instead tested Abraham's commitment to his Lord. Similarly, God never let Lot's daughters be taken and raped by the townspeople. Lot offered up his daughters in place of the angels, or in other words, he put God's well-being above that of his family. God, in return, never let Lot's daughters be taken, but instead let them survive with Lot and his wife (before salt). The real losers of the story, portrayed as idiotic and lesser in God's eyes, would be the sons-in-law of Lot. They refused to listen to reason and instead stupidly stayed in a city that got destroyed by fire. The Bible literally says that these guys thought Lot was joking! And this story is supposed to be anti-women? I'm sorry, but I interpret the story in a radically different way than you. Similarly, you say " Even in the story of Samson in Judges 13-16, the two wives that Samson marries are portrayed as deceitful and manipulative, constantly betraying Samson for personal gain. The propaganda-like portrayal of women in the story of Samson isn’t directly ordered by God, but we can see how Jews saw women (thanks to God’s earlier decrees)," in your first post about the topic of women. Yet in this post you clearly say "I never claimed God hated women, nor did I say the story of Samson was sexist propaganda," in this post. This is quite contradictory, I must say. You also accuse Phillip of straw-manning you argument, but at times you do the same to him (your entire third paragraph here is dedicated to discussing Phillip's first two paragraphs, but in fact misrepresent them and therefore straw-man them). Although this blog is well-written and humorous, I disagree with just about all of it. If you want to improve your blog, I would suggest giving the whole story and context of the passages you use in order to substantiate your points. Overall you did a good job of rebutting Phillip's points, despite the whole Samson and straw-man issue. Well done.
ReplyDeleteGod had decided to save Lot even before his daughters were offered up, so that definitely wasn't the reason he was saved. Also, I want to note how Lot threw the daughters to the rapists (who Lot thought would rape them, of course) and the angels stood by and were like "this'll do" But when the men were like "Nah we don't like women we want the angels", THEN the angels use their magic blinding powers or whatever to stop the crowd. THE ANGELS COULD HAVE USED THEIR MAGIC BLINDY POWERS BEFORE LOTS' DAUGHTERS WERE EVEN AN OPTION. But alas, not even angels value women. You could argue that the angels and God knew the men wouldn't make a move, and it was simply a test of faith for Lot, but it was still a completely unnecessary one given that Lot was getting saved no matter what. It's much more reasonable to assume that no one in this story valued the women (which is clearly seen based everyones' actions and inactions), rather than make a bunch of assumptions based off of "Well, God was probably thinking..."
DeleteAlso, "sexist propaganda" is not the same as "propaganda-like portrayal". The story of Samson wasn't primarily sexist propaganda; some argue it was Israelite propaganda made to give the Israelites a pick-me-up, given it's nonsensical story and hugely exaggerated numbers. And when I say "nonsensical", I don't mean a man being super strong. I mean a man killing 30 innocent people for absolutely no reason and still being sponsored by God nonsensical.