Atheism Rebuttal

2/4 of Atheism Debate

Next (Next Week)     Previous

      I was pretty excited when Phillip proposed this reversal of roles, and I'm also really happy that these questions were asked. I can finally explain at least a little bit about what atheism is and what it means to be an atheist, which is an important thing to know since some people think we worship Satan...

When we actually worship Cthulhu

How glorious!

    Anyways, I will be answering the questions asked by Phillip. Many of these answers will actually teach all of you something new about atheism!

     Before we begin, however, here is the definition of atheism: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." This is literally all atheism is. Nothing follows after that: It doesn't mean I support Communism, it doesn't mean I pick up an 'Atheist Bible' and adhere to the basic tenets of atheism. It means I don't believe in the existence of a God or Gods. There are many different ways to live life as an atheist. One such way is called "Christian Atheism"; that is: "a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent, but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed." Even some sects of Buddhism that don't recognize Buddha as a deity are atheistic religions. Here is a wiki page dedicated to why atheism IS NOT a religion: Here

1. Would you agree with me that atheists claim that it is possible for God to exist?

       I do agree with you! There is actually a classification for this: "weak atheism", or "Agnostic atheism". The general rationale for this position is that we cannot 100% know for sure that God or some definition of "God" does not exist. Agnostic/Weak atheists believe either that since God is not tangible, we cannot know for sure if he exists, or they believe that God or some definition of a God might exist somewhere else in the universe, but none of our religions got it right. I don't hold this position because with this logic, we can never be certain of anything ever. I can't say "leprechauns don't exist" because how could I know they don't? Repeat this for Thor, Zeus, unicorns, and God. For the sake of practicality, I can say "God/Thor/Zeus/Unicorns don't exist" despite only having 99.99% certainty. 

2. Would you also agree that atheism accepts people that say it's impossible for God to exist?

      Not to be nit picky about wording, but when you say "atheism accepts people", you make it sound like atheism is a religion with a church that denies people for not following the "true" atheism. Better wording would be, "Would you agree that some atheists claim that it's impossible for God to exist?". To this question, the answer is also a yes. This position is called "strong atheism", and is most commonly just called "atheism" (even though the majority of nonbelievers take the agnostic position). This position believes that there is no God or Gods with absolute certainty. When you say "impossible for God to exist", this is also oddly worded. Atheism in general follows that there is insufficient evidence for a God(s); not that it's impossible for God(s) to exist. There is, however, a qualm over how an omniscient, ominpotent, and omnibenevolent God(s) could exist while also having evil and suffering exist. This is the problem of evil, and that has to do more with an impossibility for a God(s) that has those three attributes to exist. With this conundrum, the Christian God does not exist. That's not to say some other type of God or Gods out there don't exist; they might, but it's such a low chance, that it's more practical to say there are is no God(s).

3. Would you agree that some parts of the Bible are true?

     Of course! Some parts are bound to be true. But I see where this question leads, which is in the direction of "If some parts are true, why not others? Isn't the Bible at least partially credible?" Well, think about the Spiderman comics. Some parts of the Spiderman comics are true, are they not? New York City is a real place, for example. But we know that Spiderman and Mary Jane and the Green Goblin are all fictional. The Spiderman comics can almost be described as historical fiction. My point is that just because the setting is a real place, the events that actually happened don't also have to be real. The tribe of Israel may have been captured by the Babylonians, but that doesn't make everything described in the Bible true. It can be seen as a Spiderman comic in that respect: actual place, some actual events, and a lot of fantasy thrown in for effect. Even Greek Epics such as "The Odyssey" feature real places and some real events, but throw in random fantasy elements.

 4. Do you believe in objective moral values?

Before Daniel answers, I am going to define what objective moral values are. These are moral values that exist independent of a group or an individual's opinion, just as physical laws exist regardless of how we would prefer them to work (some things are good other things are evil).Atheism is inherently evil. There is no foundation of morality (what is right and wrong) in atheism. The best thing atheism can offer anyone is death, a life without no objective purpose because we are all accidents. Why do atheists talk to other religious people about their beliefs? They want to "help" them out right? That's what Daniel wants to do~show us that we're wrong and we've been doing the wrong thing all of our lives. However, the universe is going to die right? Which means humanity will die. So in the atheist world view, everyone dies and everything that atheists are doing to "help" humanity (or in this case us) is in vain. Let me give an example. Someone is building a house, which he's building to help humanity and everyone else, but you know that the house is going to collapse on everyone and kill everyone, why would you build that house?Now, let us define atheism. Daniel may be able to help me with this one. Atheism is the disbelief in an existence of a God or gods. As there are people that leave Christianity, there are people that leave atheism. The reason for this is because people come off angry at God and don't give arguments against His existence and rather come off as "disagreeing with the way God does things."

    This is a big one, and I like it. I'm going to break it into bits so I can more easily address all the parts of this great question(s). And throughout my answers, remember that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or Gods. It is nothing more, and nothing less. 

 (A) Do you believe in objective moral values?
Before Daniel answers, I am going to define what objective moral values are. These are moral values that exist independent of a group or an individual's opinion, just as physical laws exist regardless of how we would prefer them to work (some things are good other things are evil).

     Other atheists might answer differently, because there are many ways to understand the world, and a simple lack of belief in God(s) doesn't automatically lead someone to choose a single understanding of morality. If you are referring to objective moral laws that exist as surely as gravity does, then my answer is no. Nothing is truly "good" or "evil", "moral" or "immoral". It's all completely relative to our culture and biology. However, if you're talking about something that is objectively moral or immoral, such as murdering an innocent human being as "objectively immoral", then I agree and disagree. It would appear that no civilization on Earth has ever shown a completely agreed morality: Cannibalism is acceptable in some cultures, and wicked in others. Stealing is acceptable in some cultures, and wicked in others. Same for the killing of innocents, torture, homosexuality, polygamy, and so on. This is clear evidence that we aren't born with a sense of morality, but rather are taught morality through our relative cultures. Right and wrong, good and evil is completely relative. Our understanding of biology also shows that animals and humans are born with certain tendencies, such as a desire for 'justice", or helping others. These I would consider objective, since all humans and a lot of animals exhibit such behavior. Whether they are good or evil is relative, though.

     If you want an obvious example of how objective moral values don't exist, look at ISIS and the Old Testament God. They honestly believe that taking child brides from defeated cities and slaughtering people is completely ok; nothing wrong morally. Talk to an ISIS member or an ancient Israelite and they'll say, "What's wrong with that?" Obviously we find these things atrocious. Therefore it's pretty reasonable to say that no objective moral values exist if both ISIS/God honestly find it fine, and we honestly find it horrible.

(B) Atheism is inherently evil. There is no foundation of morality (what is right and wrong) in atheism.

      This is simply incorrect. Lack of belief in a God or Gods isn't inherently evil in any way. Once again, the wording of the question makes atheism seem like a single ideology with principles and guidelines; like a religion. Atheism is not this at all. My belief about our foundation for morality (remember, my belief /=/ all atheists' beliefs) is that our culture is our foundation, and it's quite simple to observe. In the Middle East, to some, killing someone for leaving Islam is completely moral. They truly believe in their minds that they are completely justified and moral to do such a thing. To us, obviously this is insanity and immoral. Even in America, what is moral and immoral (what is right and wrong) is completely divided. Some Americans believe that torture is a moral method of attaining intelligence, while other Americans view it as immoral. Some Americans believe the death penalty is moral, some Americans view it as immoral. You can do this over and over again, from culture to culture. A lack of belief in God or Gods doesn't mean there is no foundation for morality. It means that morality, at least to a large extent, is relative; a simple, provable, undeniable fact. (This is my observation and opinion. Other atheists might disagree and say morality IS objective.) I think this question is based on the belief that morality literally comes from God, and if that's the case, I want to know when the taking of child brides and slaughter of sinful people are justifiable acts again.

(C) The best thing atheism can offer anyone is death, a life without no objective purpose because we are all accidents. 

      Again, acting like atheism is a religion with tenets and some definitive system. And once again, my personal belief is that there is no objective purpose in life; no "meaning of life". You make your own purpose in life because there is no divinely-mandated purpose. Some find purpose in taking care of family and raising kids, others find purpose in making the world a better place. Purpose and meaning is yours to decide. Some people don't find purpose in life, and decide that there is no point in living: nihilism. I don't like the wording of, "The best thing atheism can offer anyone is death," because now we're arguing based on what we want to believe is true rather than what is fact. A Christian proposal would be, "The best thing Christianity can offer anyone is false hope in a blissful life after death; a life with an objective purpose because we are all divinely mandated to worship and glorify God.". At this point, you're arguing that the coziest and most feel-good position is true, and the uncomfortable one is false because it is uncomfortable. This is wishful thinking. Arguing that atheism is false because it leads to no objective morality and/or no objective purpose to life is an appeal to consequences. I prefer to live with the truth rather than hide behind comforting lies. 

(D) Why do atheists talk to other religious people about their beliefs? They want to "help" them out right? That's what Daniel wants to do~show us that we're wrong and we've been doing the wrong thing all of our lives.

      My main goal was to help you look at the world for what it is rather than what an ancient book says the world is. I prefer not to have people voting against gay marriage because "God finds it detestable", and I prefer science not to be censored in schools just because it goes against an ancient book. Misinformed beliefs lead to misinformed actions, and these misinformed actions don't just affect yourselves. They affect me and everyone around you. 

(E) However, the universe is going to die right? Which means humanity will die. So in the atheist world view, everyone dies and everything that atheists are doing to "help" humanity (or in this case us) is in vain. Let me give an example. Someone is building a house, which he's building to help humanity and everyone else, but you know that the house is going to collapse on everyone and kill everyone, why would you build that house?

      It's a sad fact, yes. But it's best not to base the facts of the universe on emotions, and like I said in (C), people can find their own meaning in life. If I find my purpose is to have kids and raise them to be the nicest, brightest kids they can possibly be, then that is my purpose. I built the house because I found that to be my purpose, even if it was ultimately in vain. And just because you feel sad about this view of life, doesn't make it untrue. You can close your eyes and cover your ears, but that doesn't make the oncoming car "not true". 

(F) Now, let us define atheism. Daniel may be able to help me with this one. Atheism is the disbelief in an existence of a God or gods. As there are people that leave Christianity, there are people that leave atheism. The reason for this is because people come off angry at God and don't give arguments against His existence and rather come off as "disagreeing with the way God does things."

      This is very true indeed! Some atheists choose to be atheists because they are angry at God, for example, "God gave my mother cancer! I don't believe in Him anymore!". This obviously makes no sense, and is based purely on emotion. I feel that the last bit about some people disagreeing with how God does things is addressed towards me and how I question why God does things the way he does. When I bring up better ways God could've done certain things, it's to show you guys that God is either a buffoon or is not real. When you're omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there is no excuse to be incompetent at just about everything. To sum it up, my points go like so: "An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity would have done things this way instead of that way. Because they were done that way, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity does not exist." My arguments and disbelief aren't based on anger towards God, but rather how everything he supposedly does is terribly planned, nonsensical, or is downright evil (in respect to our modern morality). He's either lacking some of these attributes, or doesn't exist.

     Ironically, I find it interesting that religion and Christianity in particular seem to gain most of their followers through emotional necessity and other methods rather than actual truth. I was going to do a blog post on this topic on it's own, but I can introduce a bit right here:
People become Christians because:
(a) Childhood indoctrination
(b) Need an objective purpose in life
(c) Coping mechanism (Why did my dog die? God's plan, which will ensure that everything works out just fine!)
(d) Fear of hell
(e) Fear of death/nonexistence

I think there are more, but I'll include them if I do the blog post on it.

I put question number 5 and the last sentence of question number 4 together because they go hand in hand:

5. Another main reason is that there is no proof and evidence that would show atheism is true, accurate, or correct. What proof or evidence is there that shows that atheism is correct or accurate? 

     

     You're simply shifting the burden of proof over to me (to disprove God), when the burden of proof actually lies on the person making the claim (There is a God and his name is Yahweh). Now, to you, I'm the one making the claim: "There is no reason to believe Yahweh exists because there is no evidence for a Yahweh". This is due to a majority of society believing in a God of some sort, and all of us being raised as if this was fact from the day we were born (childhood indoctrination). To demonstrate that the burden of proof lies on you, I shall make a list of what the neutral position is:

-Q. Is there a God(s)/Creator? A. I don't know 
-Q. Who/what created the universe?  A. I don't know 
-Q. Who/what created mankind? A. I don't know 
-Q. How did life develop on Earth? A. I don't know 

Now I shall make a list of things Christians claim:

-Q. Is there a God(s)/Creator? A. Yahweh, described in the Bible
-Q. Who/what created the universe? A. Yahweh, described in the Bible
-Q. Who/what created mankind? A. Yahweh, described in the Bible
-Q. How did life develop on Earth? A. Yahweh allowed it to/Yahweh created it; it didn't develop
-Q. Why is the Bible true? A. Because Yahweh inspired it
-Q. How do we know Yahweh inspired the Bible? A. The Bible says so
-Q. How can we trust what the Bible says? A. Yahweh inspired it

Now do you see? The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You claim that Yahweh did these things? The Bible itself is the claim, not the evidence, Prove Yahweh exists. If you cannot do that, then you prove atheism (at least in regards to Yahweh) correct and accurate.

If you still don't understand how the burden of proof lies on you, let me reword your question:

 Another main reason is that there is no proof and evidence that would show the nonexistence of unicorns is true, accurate, or correct. What proof or evidence is there that shows that the nonexistence of unicorns is correct or accurate? 

Another main reason is that there is no proof and evidence that would show that disbelief in Zeus is true, accurate, or correct. What proof or evidence is there that shows that the nonexistence of Zeus is correct or accurate?

This is your logic: I say that there is a clay teapot in orbit around Jupiter. The teapot is too far away to see, and too small to measure through any equipment. Now prove me wrong. If you can't, then that means there is a clay teapot in orbit around Jupiter. Russell's Teapot

Women: Submit to your Husband and Society Rebuttal

     

3/4 of the Women Are Subservient Debate

Previous        Next

          This blog post is heavy on words because I really wanted to answer a couple of peoples' questions and make counterarguments, but it's content is very Q&A-like in format and is listed (Hurray!). In the first list are summarized claims made by myself in my previous post. The second list consists of summarized claims made by everyone else who gave me feedback, and the third and final list consists of counterarguments to that feedback. Enjoy!

Definition of sexism: "The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life"

My claims:

1. All of Paul's teachings are direct commands from God [Source]

2. Women should be silent in churches; shameful for them to speak in church [Source]

3. Husband rules over wife; wife submits to husband and obeys his authority [Source]

4. Woman not teach/show authority over man because Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived, not Adam [Source]

5. Dress modestly, don't adorn yourselves with jewelry, doing hair, etc; adorn yourselves with good deeds and a gentle and quiet spirit [Source]

6. Submission to the husband is because a) God said so, and b) To win others over to Christianity [Source]

7. Husbands, be nice to women. They are the weaker sex, after all [Source]

8. Not even going to mention the Job quote. I don't even know why I included that and I concede that point.

9. God punishes women for disobeying the exact commands given by Paul (modesty, do not adorn yourselves with jewelry and nice clothes) [Source]

10. Woman is the image and reflection of man, while man is the image and reflection of God. Hand in hand with this is that woman was made for man; not man for woman. Therefore, wear a head covering, women! [Source]

11. Conclusion: God's role for women is one of submission and subservience to the will of the husband. They are to be quiet in church, be obedient to the husband, be modest in character, refrain from adornment via jewelry/fancy clothing, and instead show their beauty by being passive and gentle, holy and good. Backed up by Paul's righteous teachings, female inferiority/naturally 'serving' role for women, and God's punishment for breaking these exact commands.


Everyone else's claims:

1. He must provide Scripture in the post itself; hyperlinks are not sufficient and simply build an argument for Daniel

2. Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his (Daniel's) own narrative; takes things out of context

3. Paul says, (paraphrasing) Husbands, love your wives. Wives, love and respect your husbands.

4. Men/women different beings, therefore different needs

5. Daniel becomes a "rabid feminazi"

6. Women ARE physically weaker than men

7. Urging husbands to love and respect their wives is not sexist (As Paul says to do)

8. Daniel's agenda=feminazi agenda. Therefore, it is false/holds no value

9. God put men in authority to be the leaders/maintain structure within Christianity; to bear responsibility and guide women

10. Women were seen as inferior and housewives back then, also not educated

11. Jesus advanced the status of women

12. "Love your neighbor as yourself" applies in the husband to wife relationship; make her equal to yourself [Galatians 3:28]

13. God designated men to hold organizational and familial structure as their role; does not inherently make women inferior-only gives men and women different (but important in their own way) roles. Same for "body of Christ", which I assume means the church (hence women be silent in church/don't teach a man)

14. Secular worldview is sexist, "but I don’t feel like relentlessly attacking another worldview that is different from my own" (Subtle xD)

15. There are male dominated duties and female dominated duties, but differences in roles does not imply inferiority/superiority

16. Galatians 3:28; we are all made equal via Jesus Christ. Therefore, men and women are equal

17. Romans 2:11; God doesn't show partiality. So, how can you say men are better than women? 


         Holy crap that was a lot of note-taking. Some of these points are rather weak, but others are strong and make sense, so I must give those strong points credibility. Once again, I will spend less time on the weaker points because I've already written, like, a lot of Bible-y stuff. *Side note=I didn't list sources for the oppositions' claims because I don't have them on hand or because they aren't really based on the Bible, but more so on historical context and explanations (which is fine as long as they aren't hypothetical assumptions).*

1) "He must provide Scripture in the post itself; hyperlinks are not sufficient and simply build an argument for Daniel" 
I need hyperlinks because if I copy and paste every bit of Scripture I use, then my posts would easily exceed 2000 words. I still provide the evidence; just in a much neater format that takes one extra click to access. Also, reading the source from which I gather my conclusion isn't "making an argument" for me; it's understanding how I came to my conclusion.

2) "Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his (Daniel's) own narrative; takes things out of context." 
Yes and no. His words are quite direct in what they mean, but I put very little attention towards the "husbands love your wives" parts, and more towards the ones that put women down. With historical context, this status of women is completely justifiable. But as a status imparted upon women by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity? Cultural context should have no bearing whatsoever on an eternal, righteous, and holy commandment. Therefore, these commandments given through Paul by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity are eternal, righteous, and holy (modest, no adornment, blah blah blah)

3) "Paul says, (paraphrasing) Husbands, love your wives. Wives, love and respect your husbands." 
Yes, he did. That's great that Paul teaches mutual love and respect, but my main problem is that God gives women a submissive and subservient role, and then justifies it with arguments that Eve was made after Adam, and that Eve was deceived, not Adam. It heavily implies "Women are naturally inferior and/or easily deceived, so make sure a man is watching over her or she might say something stupid in church, or teach something wrong, or stray from my righteous commandments."

4) "Men/women different beings, therefore different needs." 
Yes, they do have different needs, generally speaking of course. None of those general needs (I'm assuming you mean home-keeper, mother, obedient wife, etc.) should restrict a woman and place her role beneath that of a man, and her 'needs' should not be defined for her the moment she is born. It's a generalization, and God should let women fall into whatever walk of life they find meets their personal 'need'. It's literally sexist.

5) "Daniel becomes a "rabid feminazi"
"Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights!"

6) "Women ARE physically weaker than men"
Yes they are, and that was a big error on my part. God tells us to pay respect to women because they are the weaker sex. It's obvious that women are weaker than men physically (and one could argue emotionally). I concede that point.

7) "Urging husbands to love and respect their wives is not sexist (As Paul says to do)." 
Mutual love and respect is not sexist. Saying that someone can't speak in church because they were born a certain gender is indeed sexist. Paul does not permit women to speak in church because they were born a certain gender. Paul is being sexist. Because Paul is supposedly getting his teachings from the Holy Spirit, God does not permit women to speak in church because they were born a certain gender. God is being sexist. Make sense?

8) "Daniel's agenda=feminazi agenda. Therefore, it is false/holds no value." 
"Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights!"

9) "God put men in authority to be the leaders/maintain structure within Christianity; to bear responsibility and guide women)."
10)"Women were seen as inferior and housewives back then, also not educated." 
I like this justification because it does make sense within its cultural context; but only its cultural context. Why does God go to such great lengths to specifically exclude women from organizing the church? One could argue that they were uneducated, therefore were not fit for running God's church. If this is the case (and it appears to be), then why doesn't God tell Paul, "Hey. Dude. You should tell the priests to take women as apprentices. I mean, the priests take teenage boys and teach them the ways of the church, so why don't you encourage them to do that for women too? It would really emphasize the equality I gave all of you in Jesus Christ, too." But as the Bible tells us, God does the exact opposite and actually creates a larger disparity between men and women: Men up here leading, women down here serving and obeying. 

11) "Jesus advanced the status of women." 
That He did! I really love this aspect of Jesus. Whereas His disciples were stunned at the sight of Jesus-a Jewish Rabbi-talking to a woman, Jesus treated her like any other person. Sadly, the teachings of the New Testament (aside from the gospels) didn't get the message.  

(12,13,15,16) Will explain these at end; they need a good explanation.

14) "Secular worldview is sexist, "but I don’t feel like relentlessly attacking another worldview that is different from my own"" 
Ok, this is wrong. There is no single "secular worldview". As strange as it may sound, there is no "Atheist Bible" from which we unquestionably accept our ideologies from. 'Secular' simply means that there is no spiritual or religious basis. A secular worldview would be a view of the world which is not founded on a spiritual or religious...well, foundation. If I say, "Do good to all people for goodness' sake", then that is a secular worldview. If I say, "Kill the queers because I find them disgusting.", then that is also a secular worldview. America, for example, is a secular government. We are not governed on a spiritual or religious basis, hence why there is no official religion and there is instead a separation of church and state. I'm not trying to attack you too harshly in this explanation here; just try not to generalize a nebulous category as evil or sexist. The Bible you can actually generalize because it is defined and has boundaries-the front cover and back cover. Everything considered authentic and true about the entire religion(s) of the Judeo-Christian God is contained in that boundary, and can be defined.

17) "Romans 2:11; God doesn't show partiality. So, how can you say men are better than women?"  
This verse is out of context. This passage is talking about how, despite what you were born, the evil will be punished, and the righteous will be saved (both in regards to Judgement Day). The evil Jew will be punished along with the evil Greek (Gentile), and the righteous Jew will be saved along with the righteous Greek (Gentile). This is because "God shows no partiality"-Romans 2:11


12) "Love your neighbor as yourself" applies in the husband to wife relationship; make her equal to yourself [Galatians 3:28]

13) God designated men to hold organizational and familial structure as their role; does not inherently make women inferior-only gives men and women different (but important in their own way) roles. Same for "body of Christ", which I assume means the church (hence women be silent in church/don't teach a man)

15) There are male dominated duties and female dominated duties, but differences in roles does not imply inferiority/superiority

16) Galatians 3:28; we are all made equal via Jesus Christ. Therefore, men and women are equal
         
         I will try to touch on claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 in a broad sweep, as they all relate to Galatians 3:28: "28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." If this verse of Galatians is true, try to answer these questions: (A) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why are roles in the church (which require no extra strength) reserved specifically for men and specifically keep women from stepping into those roles? We are all made equal in Jesus Christ, so there SHOULD be no distinction between male or female, and thus a woman should be as eligible for priesthood as a man and should be able to speak/teach in church also. Paul's revelations teach us exactly the opposite. (B) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why do women reflect the image of man, but men reflect the image of Christ? (1 Corinthians 11:7) Both parties should directly reflect the image of Christ, given that we have been made one in Christ Jesus. This is apparently not the case. Also, read the rest of that passage. It does get worse. (C) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why is the wife subservient to the husband? Why is she to remain obedient to and under the authority of the husband? They are equal, but are not treated equally. Yes, they are mutually loved and respected, but when it comes down to it, if the husband wants to eat at Denny's and the wife wants to eat at Chipotle, the wife must default to the husband. If Galatians 3:28 were true, it wouldn't be 'wife under authority of husband'; it would be 'Christ Jesus making an equally influential decision as the other Christ Jesus'. Once again, not the case. (D) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why are societal roles decided by gender? There shouldn't be gender, because there's no such thing anymore-we are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet roles are still decided by gender: women to be home-keepers, mothers, and obedient and respectful to the men (as well as not partake in any church-related affairs), and men to rule over, love, "pay honor to" (remember, weaker sex) the women, and teach in the church. There should be no such distinction because they should both be Christ Jesus, not male or female. This is not the case, apparently.

          I also don't like the thought process of "Men and women are equal, but have different responsibilities." being used to justify the roles. If you place men higher than women so that men rule over women, while women are to obey and be subservient, then you already show how unequal they are, but also leave some ambiguity. When you justify this social hierarchy with reasons women are inferior to men, THEN you destroy the ambiguity. There is inequality in roles (I am the manager and leader and you shall obey me) because women are easily deceived, were the first sinners, and are made in the image of man. Men were not deceived, were not the original sinners, and are made in the image of Christ. Therefore, the husband shall rule over the wife in the family, and men shall organize the church. Women shall not speak in the church and they shall yield to the husband in the family. These are not equal roles; they are ones that clearly define a manager/employee type of power balance. And sadly, this is as close to "fair" as it gets. The Old Testament is much worse, with God's power balance back then being put almost entirely into the husband. Men could divorce a woman at any time and accuse her of adultery at any given moment. But remember, that doesn't matter because God back then was acting exactly how one would expect a primitive people to act, so that somehow excuses God's commandments back then..


         Alright, so I hope I answered all of your counterarguments sufficiently. And read Isaiah 3:16-24 again, because this example of God punishing women who resemble at least 80% of American women today should be extremely frightening. Not only does it validate what Paul taught about a modest women, no jewelry, etc. God's actions here thoroughly define it as a sin. I have heard one argument about how God cared about their motive, which was to be promiscuous, because jewelry and walking proudly was very promiscuous in that culture. One tidbit of information I found to counter that notion is when God killed a man for reaching out to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. This guy sees God's Holy Covenant unsteady as the oxen stumble, touches it with the intention of saving it from breaking, and is freaking fire-blasted by God. The man's intentions were good. Did God care? Not in the slightest. And so it will be for the women in Isaiah 3:16-24; their intentions don't matter because they are blatantly sinning by what they wear and how they walk. God's actions tell us this is sinful, Paul's teachings tell us this is sinful, yet no Christian that I know of listens... 

Women: Submit to your Husband and Society

1/4 of Women are Subservient Debate

Next

        "Oh joy! Another post about women!" Yeah guys, the Bible is overflowing in regards to sexism. It really isn't surprising given that it was written about 2000 years ago. It is surprising, however, that a book divinely inspired by God (and the opinion of God) tells us that women should submit to their husbands, as well as submit in general. Reasoning for this conclusion will be explained throughout my post, and forgive me if I don't analyse certain passages too deeply; I have literally TEN passages that tell us women are to submit to the stronger sex, and a limited amount of space. I do want to note that most of these passages also tell men to love their wives and treat them as they treat themselves. However, this changes nothing about the status and role God and the Apostles impart upon women.

       I want to kick start our journey into righteous sexism with 1 Corinthians 14:34-38. This is my favorite passage of them all because when I was reading it, Paul actually DIRECTLY stated my mindset for this entire topic! It's going to sound repetitive given that I've said it before, but this time when you ridicule my stance, you also ridicule Paul's! The part about women is you're typical "women should be silent in churches" because it's shameful for a woman to speak in church. The part I absolutely love is what he follows up his sexist statement with:

"36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)37 Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.38 Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized." 

     This is what I've been saying for the last month or two! Of course, Paul straight up pulls the "God told me so and you defy God's commandment" card. So when reading through the rest of my post, remember: These are God's commandments to all of us. Paul knows because he is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, as are the rest of the Apostles. Disagreeing with them is LITERALLY disagreeing with God. See why I love this passage? It's no longer "just my opinion/interpretation". Now it is plainly stated that this is God's opinion-God's command.

       I want to get a lot of analysis on a few particular passages, so I'm just going to dump a bunch of verses and summarize what they mean. 

       Genesis 3:16 tells us that the husband is to "rule over you". Ephesians 5:22-24 also tells us "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord." and "Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands." Colossians 3:18:"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." It's quite clear from these passages, ladies: The husband is to rule over the wife, and the wife to accept the husband's authority over her.

       Furthermore, women are to be silent in church and be modest in the way they dress. They aren't supposed to adorn themselves by doing their hair, wearing gold/fancy jewelry, or by wearing expensive clothing, but rather with good works. Women also are not permitted "to teach or have authority over a man". The reasoning behind all of these commands is fantastic: 

" For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

      The passages we gather this knowledge from are 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, and 1 Peter 3:1-6.

There we have it! Women were deceived, not men! Therefore, women are to be modest in dress and actions as well as show no authority over/teach a man. Women are instead primarily for pumping out babies! Thank you Apostles, for God's infinite wisdom! 

      More rationale for the submissive role of women is presented, of course. We are told that this state of submission serves to glorify God and ultimately win people over to the religion through strict obedience to the husband. My guess is that the ploy went something like this: "See how obedient my wife is, Gentiles? See how she obeys me in everything I do and is always respectful, dressing modestly and acting righteous? Well, it's because Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior! Sign up now and you're wife will be just like this!" (Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Peter 3:1-6)

       The subservient state of women just wouldn't be complete without some primitive justification...wait a second, how about "women are inferior"? For this, I'll go back and use some previous verses. In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, for example, women are inferior because "Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." I might be jumping to conclusion by using this as evidence for female inferiority; I mean Paul only used it to justify female subservience, modesty, and role of baby-maker. We need a "better" example of female inferiority. Let's go to 1 Peter 3:7:"7 Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex,[a] since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.". That's pretty direct, dare I say? "woman as the weaker sex," can't really be misconstrued unless you're ready to pull off some big-time mental gymnastics. Yet another display of women's inferiority is in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (context is speaking about whether to wear head coverings or not): "7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection[a] of God; but woman is the reflection[b] of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.". Women are reflecting man's image, men are reflecting God's image. Also, women are made for the sake of men. Once again, EXTREMELY self-explanatory. So it's hopefully pretty clear now that women are inferior to men, which is why they are divinely ordered to remain subservient to men (on top of the argument about attracting members to the religion).

       God's direct words and actions can also back up the Apostles' statements. I only have two references for this, but I'm sure more exist that I simply haven't found yet. The weaker of the two is shown in Job 38:3:"Gird up your loins like a man". I find this statement pretty weak, but I see it as God saying "Toughen up, like a man." which is sexist to the same level as saying, "Oh, be a man!" to a friend. Once again, this interpretation is really weak, especially after typing it out and reading it aloud (lol).

        An extremely strong reinforcement of what the Apostles taught is seen in God's treatment of the women of Zion in Isaiah 3:16-24. I love this passage almost as much as I love 1 Corinthians 11:34-38 because it completely validates my position. Basically, the women of Zion are waaaay too proud. They walk with upheld chins, look around with seductive eyes, sway their hips when they walk, and wear ornaments on their ankles. For these heinous crimes, God will inflict scabs on these women's scalps which will make them bald, take every bit of fine clothing and jewelry away from them, and make them smell foul. Why? Because God won't be having these evil women walking around like they are "people"! But seriously, God is condemning these women for things women now-a-days do on a daily basis. It correlates with the Apostle's role and status for women and really shows us what a "sinful woman" looks like: Any woman in a 1st world country. Seriously, guys. People in Saudi Arabia are following God's commandments better than us. I thought this was a Christian country...?

They think they're people! TORTURE THEM FOR THIS MISTAKE

        Ok ok, enough jokes. This position designated by God for women is obviously absurd. If it doesn't sound familiar enough already, then allow me to tell you that it is very similar to the Middle East and their view of women. With this knowledge, we can also see why women were kept down for such a long time in the United States. The Bible specifically designates the role of women as that of a home-keeper subservient to her husband and obedient to him in all circumstances. To most of us, this is a sexist and backwards mindset. One that cannot exist in the future, and one that is directly at odds with modern feminism and women's rights. Of course, if you're a firm believer in God and his righteous commandments, then these are matter-of-fact statements. Women are inferior, subservient to men, to dress modestly, be obedient, be silent in church, not teach/show authority over men, and be home-keepers. These are all based on the biblical commandments of the Apostles and God, most of which are New Testament. Disobeying these commandments puts you against the intentions and will of God.