CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Come on lets here the rebuttals, lets here the bullshit you people have to protect this anti-women book, I dare you, do it, because I will smash you with your own Bibles words.
I really hate people like this. He absolutely has no idea what he is talking about.
Let me clarify for everyone else who does not understand. In the times of Rome, women were treated with great disdain and it was more than uncustomary for them to speak in public facilities or hold positions of power. As a result, Paul himself (note he says I, not God. Paul makes distinction between his opinion and God's opinion many times. Needless to say when we read Paul saying "I" we think Paul means God said so, when he said I said so) tells the churches in Rome not to allow women to speak or to hold positions of power. Let me put it in modern day context to tell you what would happen if a woman had that kind of power: the church doors would have been kicked down and the church would have been persecuted. To avoid this, Paul enforced this as law. Needless to say, he saw no need to explain in full context because who he was writing to already knew why and the situation. Paul giving the exact details about everything happening would have been like me texting my friend about a situation that we already knew about and then giving every single freaking detail about said story to the T, which would probably piss him off.
Edit: This applied to Corinth too, which was where he sent the letter.
If I had to make a guess, it would probably be because the women who are Christian are only Christian because they want a D that happens to belong to a Christian and will probably only manage to acquire that D by being Christians themselves.
My conspiracy theory I Just made up. Lucifer actually made his way to earth through the body of some woman to the child. Then after he was born and came of age he started to spew his philosophical poison.
Ecclesiasticus is not in the Bible so one down. The man in the video refused to attack the argument placed up by apologists or take the reasoning or historical context well. His shirt says, "KEEP CALM AND USE LOGIC" but he neither kept calm or used logic. His argument is so surface deep it is not even funny. How do you feel when Christians argue with you from a surface deep perspective?
Any of you have any comprehension skills at all or are you just like the Christians you accuse of having no comprehension? Think you yourself and provide examples besides the one this guy spouted at you.
That is a weak argument in my opinion. Lot's of things have the word "kill" in it. like " Don't kill him!" The bible often talks about peace and say NOT to murder. A beter arguement would be " The bible treats women like second class humans." Which is a good arguement in this case, even if I disagree with it.
I'm satirising the original description, the verses quoted have been taken completely out of context and do not acknowledge the several guidelines proposed to husbands and the fact that they should care and take responsibility for their wives.
As you said the Bible also states opposite points of view, but that seems oblivious to the debate creator who seems to have nothing better to do with their time but make outrageous claims to provoke Christians into debate.
19 All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.
24 Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.
This is from the Apocrypha. This is not from Christianity.
Genesis Chapter 3
Old Testament: Below
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desireshall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
This was a punishment that was induced as a result of the fall. If you read before it and after it God gives both the serpent and man punishments as well. Don't pick and choose.
1 Corinthians Chapter 14
New Testament: Below
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
It also gives strict guidelines in 1 Timothy as to who can serve in the church as elders and deacons. God has established a role for women; however, role is not equivalent to status, right, bearing, etc.
The Bible is actually a very liberating book for women, though. During the time of the Old Testament, it was common for the world to be misogynistic. However, God institutes many barriers that prevent women from being used and to uphold women. If a woman was raped in that time period, she was seen by many as dirty and unclean, thus, not being able to be chosen as a wife. The Bible institutes that the rapist should take her as his wife and pay money to marry her. Even at that, her father retains the ability to deny the marriage, if he desires to continue to take care of her. Remember, in those times, a woman could not live without her husband being there, for the most part. Furthermore, God instituted laws to make sure that women would not be passed from one person to another person. Continued, Proverbs 31 is filled with notions of what we, in modern times, would consider a liberated woman! Not just this, but God chose women to be the first discoverers of the empty tomb. The Bible is anything but misogynistic... It is liberating. Not just in a secular meaning, but the Bible also states that servitude and meekness are the qualities of a leader: people who are submissive are those who are great in the eyes of the Lord! Hence, the Bible actually boosts women up, if anything. You should really study your Old Testament history and how the context of the times actually proves the God of the Bible to be a good being.
He does. He tells Christians all the time to be submissive and to be meek and humble... that the greatest shall be least and the least shall be the greatest. Its all over the New Testament.
No, not necessarily. Proverbs 31 speaks of women doing all sorts of things, even up to real-estate. The Bible is very liberation for women.... the so called "conservatives" are not conservatives to the Bible, but to tradition...
I wasn't talking about the Bible, I was talking about the conservative Christians who say women being meek and submissive is good, yet they rarely apply this to men
What the fuck is up with that BS with the women? Why even type that first statement and then type that second statement which the first part of that second statement contradicts the first statement? Why would he punish women? Punishment for the woman who committed the sin should have sufficed.
With Adam came death to all men, for all have sinned. Each and every person is born (made and conceived is considered the same) in sin, thus, making everyone guilty of sin. Thus, all flesh has become subjugated to the punishment of the fall. Moreover, God's punishments are just, and He does all things to His good pleasure. Continued, with this fall comes hope that we shall be lifted of our mutiny against God.
The world was, in a sense, heaven: God was with them personally. However, when the serpent came, and God left them, the first sin occurred. The world, which was to represent heaven, was no more, since sin had entered it.
So the world was heaven and god was with them. Were did the serpent come from? Did god not create the serpent? I thought God created everything? Why did god leave them when the serpent came? He forsaken them.
God is all-knowing and was there at the time. He moved through those who wrote down the Bible to ensure perfect transmission of the story. Hence, the Spirit of God took them over to ensure a perfect and infallible Word of God, that was breathed by the Spirit.
You think it's just that all humanity suffers for what two people did. It's just another disgusting example of how morally bankrupt religious people are. It's also another example of the countless errors and contradictions in the bible.
You might recall it also says that sons will not be punished for the sins of their fathers doesn't it? Oh but bastards aren't allowed to go to church, so maybe sons are punished for the sins of their fathers. This bible nonsense is tricky business isn't it?
And now that I know you're ok with being punished for things somebody else did, please send me your name and address so I can arrange for you to go to prison for me if I ever decide to knock off a bank or punch some mofo in the teeth. Thanks.
Also everything happens according to God's will, so he knew the snake bullshit ahead of time. He knew the satan bullshit ahead of time. He planned the entire thing. God is the architect of evil. He created it.
In other words, god is a shit-faced baby-killing douchebag and anybody with half an ounce of decency should realize this.
You think it's just that all humanity suffers for what two people did. It's just another disgusting example of how morally bankrupt religious people are. It's also another example of the countless errors and contradictions in the bible.
For the sin of Adam came the corruption of the flesh. Sin is not simply an action, it is a nature. Hence, since Adam brought death into the world, and the corruption of the flesh, everyone bears the punishment of they. How are we morally bankrupt? How is this an error or contradiction in the Bible?
You might recall it also says that sons will not be punished for the sins of their fathers doesn't it? Oh but bastards aren't allowed to go to church, so maybe sons are punished for the sins of their fathers. This bible nonsense is tricky business isn't it?
These verse are in Old Testament civic law. Israel was a nation with a government and everything. The civic laws were instituted for the grounded nation of Israel to have a system of justice. What you are referring to is a different context of not punishing the child for the sins of the father (i.e. if a father rapes a woman, then the son is not punished); however, the context of the fall is that of bringing death into the world and corrupting the flesh so that evil is apart of our nature. The verse you are referring to, about bastards not entering into the assembly of the Lord, is about not being a member of the leaders. This is what the context is and this is what the Jews had always taken it to mean. How is the Bible tricky business?
And now that I know you're ok with being punished for things somebody else did, please send me your name and address so I can arrange for you to go to prison for me if I ever decide to knock off a bank or punch some mofo in the teeth. Thanks.
Different contexts.
Also everything happens according to God's will, so he knew the snake bullshit ahead of time. He knew the satan bullshit ahead of time. He planned the entire thing. God is the architect of evil. He created it.
He did know it. He did plan it. He does everything according to the counsel of His will and for the good of those who love Him. However, the wicked meant it for evil, while God meant it for good. God preordains everything to happen; however, that does not make Him bad.
In other words, god is a shit-faced baby-killing douchebag and anybody with half an ounce of decency should realize this.
If could god "breath" this BS into certain people why not everyone else?
And another thing what makes you think that your version of a belief is any more true than anyone else's?
It's like a kid believing every little thing he hears out of a fictional book about mythical creatures then going around and preaching as if it's the truth.
Some other kid could have a different belief of the mythical creatures and exclaim that his belief is the right one and the others is wrong.
That is the greatest flaw with religion.
Why would god let other religions be created? Why would he even give people the choice of that when it would ultimately lead to their downfall to hell? Because it's obviously hard to get someone to switch beliefs. How is this part of his Creation plan?
The way most of you mortals represent God makes him look like a moron if anything at all.
God must not be who you people are making it out to be if there is one.
And then you can go and say that God must have a Godly reason for doing these things
yet his reason for doing things is explained in the scriptures so why not have these other things explained in the scriptures as well?
If could god "breath" this BS into certain people why not everyone else?
Its not BS. He chose certain people to do it.
And another thing what makes you think that your version of a belief is any more true than anyone else's?
Show me another Biblical view.
Why would god let other religions be created? Why would he even give people the choice of that when it would ultimately lead to their downfall to hell? Because it's obviously hard to get someone to switch beliefs. How is this part of his Creation plan?
Read 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. For those who love wickedness, God sent them a strong delusion so that they may believe what is false. God has created the wicked for the day of destruction so that He may be glorified and His elect may live in love and grace.
yet his reason for doing things is explained in the scriptures so why not have these other things explained in the scriptures as well?
He has explained it. Read the ending of Job, Read Genesis 50:20, Proverbs 16:4, Romans 9, etc.
Not at all! God works all things according to the counsel of His will and for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11)! His elect have been made so that He may glorify Himself through us and in us, by the receiving of God's grace! As Ecclesiastes says, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!" Everything in this life is purposeless except for believing and following the Lord; because of this, we should take joy in our eat, drink, and toil! Hence, find joy in the freedom that the Gospel of Christ has lavished upon us! God has made us His children: He has adopted us as sons of the most High God, whom the creation waits in eager longer to be revealed! Joy and happiness are both wonderful things that the Lord has given to us so that we may celebrate with Him, in His glory! There is much purpose in life!
Exactly! The entire context of the verse is that God adopts His children, who have been born again, this time of the Spirit of God at the will of God, who cry out in longing "Abba! Father!" because of the sufferings and weaknesses of this life, and they will love Him and have all things worked for their good by God. He foreknew them, which is to say fore loved in a communion and fellowship and personal and unconditional and absolute sense, and because of this predestined them to be conformed to the image of Jesus, which is to say not sin, which has a root in unbelief. Those whom He predestined He called, and those whom He called He justified, through His Son's sacrifice. Those whom He justified He also glorified. Hence, God chooses those who will love Him and works all thins for their good because He loves them in a very personal and fellowship-like sense.
So he chooses who will be happy and who will suffer their whole lives. That is fucked up.
I'm not so ignorant as to ignore other peoples misfortune. I feel terrible for these people and there is only God to blame for it. How can I love someone who has caused something so terrible. I like the idea of heaven and would love to go to heaven, but I would have to completely destroy any dignity I had to worship this God and that would only leave me an empty shell of who I used to be.
I'd rather just be reincarnated so I can comeback and live another life.
Suffering is used by God to bring people closer to Him! Since He is the greatest thing possible, then bringing people closer to Him is the greatest thing that He can do! This was one reason for God letting Satan mess with Job. Refer to Psalm 107 and the beatitudes.
Suffering is used by God to bring people closer to Him!
Well it's not working.
Why would I go to the thing that caused all of the suffering in the first place?
That's like getting brutally beaten by a stranger then deciding to go find that stranger(after you awaken from your coma) to thank him for giving you sever brain trauma. Just wtf?
Suffering is for the furthering of the Gospel, which is good! Really, the suffering was for your own good! Put it this way: when we make a child go to the dentist, the child hates it, but it is for his own good.
God caused the problem while offering the solution. This is a basic principle of enslaving people. Are you really sure you want to put God in the same category as Hitler, Stalin and even Satan?
Your analogy is bad because the dentist didn't create the problem in the first place. For your analogy to be accurate, the dentist had to have caused the dental problems in the first place. Think about it this way: It's like dentists created corrosive and addictive Coca Cola, so that people would get tons of dental problems, which then allowed the dentist to get huge profits. Does that make dentists are savors? I don't think so.
It sure looks like 'God' is doing the same thing, except maybe, for the fact that God wants attention and recognition instead of money he could buy shit for. There's no rational reason to trust a being that starts out by harming you and then offering salvation. For all we know the 'salvation' might just be another part in a chain of abusive behavior.
Ok, so what your saying is, since the Old Testament was way worse, which is still part of Christianity by the way, that it is ok for the New Testament to suck for women as long as it is less sucky than the Old Testament?
Neither the Old nor New suck for women.... People who are misogynistic, the ones whom God has instituted laws against to protect women, are the ones that make the life of a woman hard.
Some laws. Hey, if you brutally rape someone I have a really good punishment for you ... marry her. Weird. Isn't that strange. The way to show your connection with someone is also the thing forced onto rapists.
Neither the Old nor New suck for women
You seem to think otherwise. Didn't you say that the New Testament was very freeing to women? Doesn't that mean that the Old Testament was not. So, you must be saying that the Old Testament did suck for women, at least a little.
You seem to think otherwise. Didn't you say that the New Testament was very freeing to women? Doesn't that mean that the Old Testament was not. So, you must be saying that the Old Testament did suck for women, at least a little.
Lmao, yeah. I can't say I have any love for Christianity, but compared to other religions such as, oh, Islam, Women have so many rights it's not funny.
I really hate people like this. He absolutely has no idea what he is talking about.
Let me clarify for everyone else who does not understand. In the times of Rome, women were treated with great disdain and it was more than uncustomary for them to speak in public facilities or hold positions of power. As a result, Paul himself (note he says I, not God. Paul makes distinction between his opinion and God's opinion many times. Needless to say when we read Paul saying "I" we think Paul means God said so, when he said I said so) tells the churches in Rome not to allow women to speak or to hold positions of power. Let me put it in modern day context to tell you what would happen if a woman had that kind of power: the church doors would have been kicked down and the church would have been persecuted. To avoid this, Paul enforced this as law. Needless to say, he saw no need to explain in full context because who he was writing to already knew why and the situation. Paul giving the exact details about everything happening would have been like me texting my friend about a situation that we already knew about and then giving every single freaking detail about said story to the T, which would probably piss him off.
The entire Bible is inspired by God and God breathed. When Paul differentiates in the Bible between himself and the Lord, he is differentiating between what Jesus said (the Lord), while on earth, and what the Spirit says through him. It is all God breathed though.
Yes I do believe all Scripture is God breathed and in this specific instance Paul was speaking with the knowledge he gained from God (which gave him an ability to deduce what was better off). Paul made a correct judgement, in order for the church to strive but as much as it was correct, it was still an opinion. In other words, if the church chose to disobey him, they would have suffered great loss. Needless to say, the knowledge God gave man allows him to deduce correctly but it does not make it any less an opinion.
But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
Paul has made decisions before, educated ones. And he uses the pronouns I, which cannot be mistaken as the Holy Spirit. Any good advice is from God, and this is good advice but advice is not binding.
Face palm When Paul says "the Lord" he is referring to what Jesus said on earth. You can look up them up in the Bible and see that each one corresponds with a reference to Jesus' teachings. When he says "I" he is referring to what the Spirit is saying through him.
Dude, stop putting your arguments on the wrong side. So you are saying when Paul made a simple request of bringing the warm coat from Troas was inspired by the Holy Spirit? SUPER-MEGA ULTRA FACE PALM
All stories in the Bible are told through the Spirit. ;) What you are implying is that all stories in the Bible are not divinely inspired. They are all divinely inspired and included in the Bible for reference, since all Scripture is God breathed. Also, yes, the bringing of the coat was inspired by the Holy Spirit. ;) Don't pick and choose which Bible verses you want to be God breathed ;) Thats claiming parts of the Bible to not be divine.... is that a good thing?
I am not picking and choosing, Paul's words were inspired by God but they were not "God breathed" as you say. The phrase "God breathed" is interchangeable with "inspired" according to multiple Bible transitions. Paul's words were inspired, that means they were good for teaching but they could also be erroneous in nature.
I am not picking and choosing, Paul's words were inspired by God but they were not "God breathed" as you say.
So not all Scripture is God breathed?
The phrase "God breathed" is interchangeable with "inspired" according to multiple Bible transitions. Paul's words were inspired, that means they were good for teaching but they could also be erroneous in nature.
So all Scripture could be wrong according to the Bible? So when Paul says that people are justified by faith alone, he could be wrong?
Do you even realize the implications of what you are saying?
The man in the video gave a great arguement. The best thing I can use to argue against it is that the bible says that in heven there will be no more sex or gender.
It's disgusting how atheists just foam at the mouth about Christianity. All they ever talk about is all the "offensive" things in the Bible. They never want to recognize the main message, and they conveniently forget how God commands husbands to love and respect their wives. He refers to the Church as His bride, and commands men to love their wives as He loves His Church bride. The prostitute whom Jesus forgave, remember her? She came to Him, weeping, speaking, in front of a room full of men. And Jesus practically told the men that she was BETTER than them. So to all of you acting like it's just so offensive, get a life. Seriously.
