DDO Round 4

Rebuttals:

4. Feminism, what even is it?

In response to my opponent's first paragraph in this round, I have already given reasons as to why feminism can sometimes be reproachable, to wit I should not have to repeat myself. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, by my opponent's own admission feminism is not above scrutiny/criticism, and solely on the premises I gave in round 2, supported by my opponent himself, the conclusion that there is no inherent reasoning given why feminism should not be impeded by Bronze Age text, is what I am trying to illustrate.

My opponent suggest that delusional ideas cannot originate from feminist ideology (according to his initial definition), and whether or not my opponent would form such ideas from feminism (as according to the initial definition), it is not to say that it is not possible for others to form such ideas given the loose definition; with the definition of feminism being a movement/ideology with the goal of defining, establishing and achieving equal rights for women, it leads to the freedom for certain individuals to define equal rights in delusional manners. The irony being that my opponent defined feminism in such a way as to prevent the laughable feminist realities (such as ludicrous proposed definitions for rape [17]), by restricting it to revolving around "equal rights", whilst it is the same sentiment given by the very same radical feminists in the first place. Since, given individuals' rights to define for themselves the equal rights and the methods in which to establish them, leads to the reality that certain individuals form an understanding of such matters in manners which others – even within the same movement – would deem delusional. My opponent may be right in his assumption that feminism is not "an attempt to persuade right-thinking rational people that women are as strong as men", however "an attempt to persuade right-thinking rational people that women are as strong as men" is feminism. Such as how all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs [18]. It is clear to see that my opponent's understanding of feminism primarily encapsulates women's rights to education and employment, seeing as his entire justification for feminism has been on these two points, however this was only given as an example in the definition and not the sole definition – not to mention that I have no qualms against a woman's right to education/employment (whether or not I may not agree with particular stances on the role of women).

Once again, there is an implication of the transcendence of the feminist ideology, in that my opponent proposes it in a manner in which it cannot possibly lead to delusional ideologies, despite previously conceding that it can be infallible at times, and also by holding it in a superior position relative to other schools of thought (such as Bronze Age ones), without justification, restriction freedom of criticism. Also, to note, in a Christian perspective, it logically follows that certain philosophies have superiority over others, whilst in the naturalistic perspective this does not hold true, in fact all ideas in such a perspective would be equally worthless on an inherent basis.


5. Biblical innerancy

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for giving me his permission to believe in the Bible, and I should also mention that my reference to 2 Timothy 3:16 [15] was the Biblical basis for my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, since the word of God is an authority to the Christian. I know this seems like circular logic to non-Christians, however for Christians, as Romans 8:16 [19] suggests, we have an internal assurance of spiritual matters; a more apt analogy than that given by my opponent for which would be pulling oneself up with a pulley [20]. In all seriousness, there are innumerous arguments in favour of Christianity, ranging from the elementary arguments for theism, such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments [21], to more comprehensive arguments for Christianity, such as prophetic probability [22], holistic internal harmony of the Bible [23], and extra-dimensional reality in the Bible [24]. As aforementioned, there are countless other reasons as to how Christians justify their belief, nevertheless with faith rooting said belief, which I would recommend individuals to look into; unfortunately, this is not the topic of debate, and as such, I shall move onto my next point of rebuttal.


6. A transatlantic detour...

Well, I guess I will not be getting back to topic just yet. As a preamble to my response to my opponents interest in the slavery referenced in the Bible, I should make it clear that I obviously do not believe that the environmental context of the events within the Bible had no effect on its content, but that the core truths held within the Bible are inerrant and transcend our understanding, although, quite obviously history has occurred how it has, and there is no reason in dwelling upon useless hypotheticals, in fact I trust that it has occurred in such a way for good reasons. My opponent lists a number of passages which tackle the topic of servitude, such as Leviticus 25:44 " Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." [25]; whilst, however, using a translation which uses the particular terminology "slave" in order to, what I can assume, conjure up emotional responses due to association of the concept of slavery with the transatlantic (chattel) slave trade, although the ancient institute of servitude spoken of cannot be received with such preconceptions.

We see in Leviticus 24:22 [26] that inclusive moral law apply to all people, with foreigners being told to be treated as brothers in Leviticus 19:34 [27]; with the same word for Hebrew and foreign servants (ebed [28], and for females, amah [29]), indicating said servants should be morally speaking, equally treated, although certain exclusive legal permissions for Hebrews existed, such as manumission after 6 years of servitude, referenced to in Exodus 21:2 [30]. Despite this liberty to leave on the 7th year, there were still cases of individuals finding this servitude beneficial, to the degree that they give themselves into permanent servitude, in like manner to the permanent servitude of the foreigner servants, as seen described in Exodus 21:5-6 [31]. We also see, that these were not purely nationalistic, as owning servants was not exclusively permitted to Hebrews, but indeed as Leviticus 25:47-48 [32] illustrates, foreigners were permitted to buy Israelite servants, showing also the mutually beneficial nature of this institute, seeing as they would permit such things. We also see the model of sale presented in Leviticus 25:47-48 [32], with self-sale, or in Exodus 22:3 [33], as a means of paying off debt; whilst Exodus 21:16 [34] condemns the kidnapping individuals for the means of servitude. And perhaps, considering Exodus
12:48 [35], wherein converts where to be treated as Israelites, Hebraic conversion may have been a means to gain liberty in manumission, however this is only speculative, but either way the system would possibly protect their spiritual state, by keeping those in servitude away from practicing idolatry, which is prohibited in Exodus 20:3 [36] - to note since we are discussing the inspiration of the Bible in regards to "slavery" it follows to assume the inspiration of the Bible in judgment. Nevertheless, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 [37] shows that freedom was granted to runaway servants, and there were still provisions for manumission for foreign servants in the case of bodily harm, as illustrated in Exodus 21:26-27 [38]; which brings us to the second passage quoted by my opponent, Exodus 21:20-21 [39], in which punishment is called for in the case of the master murdering a servant - which is actually a law to protect servants. Although, I suppose my opponents arguments is that the master is not punished in cases of manslaughter, but once again, I will redirect the objection to the context. Firstly, as I have just mentioned, this law was to in fact protect the servant, and the repercussion of transgressing said law seems to possibly be death punishment, given that the Hebrew word used is "naqam", meaning avenge [40], and in the light of verses like Exodus 21:23 [41] we can see how this would be sufficient deterrent from risking beating one's servant, to such a degree to cause manslaughter. However, we still need to understand that corporal punishment is acceptable if applied in a correct manner, in fact it is even advocated in Proverbs 13:24 [42], which is in reference to children, with it being clear to see that this corporal punishment is supposed to be for discipline purposes and in an edifying nature; knowing this, we can understand that even if a servant was not killed, the master would be punished if he unlawfully punished his servant, as referenced in Exodus 21:26-27 [38].

This brings us to the questions of whether regulating certain actions, is an indication of whether it is the recommended ideal; for example, in Deuteronomy 24:1 [43], we are given regulatory laws in the event of divorce, despite the fact that Malachi 2:16 [44] clearly says that God hates divorce, and furthermore, we are given insight in the New Testament, where Jesus, in Matthew 19:8 [45] explains that divorce was not intended and it was only regulated due to the hardness of men's hearts. For insight on the matter, see Matthew 5:39 [46], "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.", in which we are all told to suffer the offence of men, but saying so does not imply that the act that other men do a righteous, in fact quite clearly Christ calls certain acts which we should suffer as evil. Now, in regards to New Testament references to slavery, my opponent brings up 1 Peter 2:18-20 [47], which instructs those in servitude to obey their masters, however my opponent fails to bring up the previous verses in 1 Peter 2:13-17 [48], which provides context, whereby in humility these individuals where to "silence the foolishness of ignorant men", and where not to be aggressive rebels but to bring God unto the forefront of their sights. Another verse my opponent could have offered was Ephesians 6:5-9 [49], which similarly tells those in servitude to subject themselves to obedience of their masters, but rather in a manner in which they are to do it unto God, whilst we are also given verses which clarify that Christians live for heavenly hopes, wherein they will be rewarded for their longsuffering, and also instructing masters to be righteous, as they too will be held accountable for their actions by their Master in heaven. Also, in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 [50], we once again are given an understanding that those in servitude are supposed to abide in servitude, although if it is possible to be freed, since that is the ideal, showing once again, that slavery is not an ideal system; in fact in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 [51], we are told that slave-trading (in the manner in which, for example, the transatlantic slave trade played out), is unrighteousness. We also see in Paul's letter to Philemon [52], wherein he writes a letter to the master of a servant, Onesimus, who Paul sent back to his master, asking that Philemon treats Onesimus as brother despite their social status; which brings me to close with a reference to Galatians 3:28 [53], in which we are given to understand that we are all equal in Christ.

As we see, the Bible has to be understood within its own context, and as a whole; in doing so I do believe that yes, these texts are inspired from God. By taking verses out of their rightful context, my opponent at best is practicing intellection dishonesty or trying to emotionally manipulate the reader, with such a sensitive topic, by means of opportunistic presumptions. And finally, my opponent references a claim by a disreputable website, which claims that women had no rights or roles whatsoever, outside of childbearing, which is a gross generalization at best, or a bare-faced lie. By just looking at the Bible, the very book that my opponent is trying to attack, we can see that in Judges 4:4 [54], we have a woman named Deborah, who is not only a prophetess of God, but she is held in a high judicial position.


7. Thou shalt not abort?

My opponent claims that Exodus 20:13 [10] has been mistranslated, in that the correct translation instead of kill should be murder, going on to conclude that because of this abortion is not condemned in the Bible. This does not resolve the issue of what is meant by murder [55], rather, it simply dismisses that it means kill; in fact, simply glossing over the source provided by my opponent for the mistranslation of the verse, reveals that "the Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defence." [56], and since abortion does not qualify as warfare or self-defence, and a fetus could not possibly have committed a crime that requires capital punishment, my opponent fails to make any case as to how abortion is exempt from the commandment not to kill. Regardless of whether abortion is directly mentioned in the Bible, with Exodus 20:13 as our foundation, we can begin to make a case against abortion. If we take the definition of murder as the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" [57], overlooking the legality at the moment for the sake of the argument, seeing as we are discussing how the law should be defined, and that abortion laws different from location to location, we have a basic understanding of what murder is. Now, the term human encompasses all individuals of the genetic species Homo sapiens [58], and with the understanding of abortion being the "deliberate termination of a human pregnancy" [59], we begin to see how a case can be made for abortion falling under the broad category of murder. Furthermore, we know that at the moment of fertilization, a zygote has a full set of genes, and is a genetically unique human being [60]; knowing this, we can conclude, that the deliberate killing of a fetus would be deemed murder. Also, if we examine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [61], we see that in Article 2 "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as [...] birth or other status.", furthermore, that in Article 3, we see that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.", forming a strong argument as to why abortion should not be a universal freedom. I ask the question of where we are to draw the line of when an individual should be classed to have a right to life, if not at conception of the human being as a unique form of life; the likes of Peter Singer claims that "the life of a new-born baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig" [62], which makes one wonder when a human life begins to hold value. Would my opponent be open to infanticide? If not, does he eat pork? If so, what defence would he have against infanticide? Does he believe that a woman with postnatal depression has a right to kill her baby [63], since her well-being and choice overrules the baby’s right of life? All these questions, and more, are brought into account if we decide that we get to decide who deserves human rights, despite their genetic make-up, and who does not. Finally, I would like to reference Luke 1:41, which says "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb" [64], clarifying that the Bible does view a fetus as a person.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a side-note, I would like to make it clear that my opponent does not need to suggest, as he puts it, that my attitude to the divine inspiration of the Bible is serious, I as a Christian profess it. And, in all honesty, the personal interpretations of liberal theologians on the matter is not of my concern.

I should also take this chance, before the final round, that in his second round my opponent references Job 31 in his argument for the Bible being objectionable in regards to its perspective on women, with the irony being that if we look at Job 31:13-15 [65], in which we can see that it hints towards the complementarian [66] equality [67] contained within the Bible, not to mention the coincidental reference to Job in his fetal stage and the condemnation he would face if he had caused his servants injustice.


[17] https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger
[19] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:16
[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orDoh0TNK-Q
[21] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/
[22] http://www.goodnewsdispatch.org/math.html
[23] http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/
[24] http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/245/
[25] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A44&version=KJV
[26] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+24%3A22&version=KJV
[27] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A34&version=KJV
[28] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05650&t=KJV
[29] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H519&t=KJV
[30] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A2&version=KJV
[31] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A5-6&version=KJV
[32] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A47-48&version=KJV
[33] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A3&version=KJV
[34] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21:16&version=KJV
[35] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12:48&version=KJV
[36] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A3&version=KJV
[37] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+23%3A15-16&version=KJV
[38] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A26-27&version=KJV
[39] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A20-21&version=KJV
[40] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5358
[41] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A23&version=KJV
[42] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+13%3A24&version=KJV
[43] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+24%3A1&version=KJV
[44] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2:16
[45] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A8&version=KJV
[46] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A39&version=KJV
[47] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A18-20&version=KJV
[48] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A13-17&version=KJV
[49] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A5-9&version=KJV
[50] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A20-24&version=KJV
[51] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A9-10&version=KJV
[52] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philemon%201&version=KJV
[53] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3%3A28&version=KJV
[54] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+4%3A4&version=KJV
[55] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7523&t=KJV
[56] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
[57] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/murder
[58] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human-being
[59] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abortion
[60] http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
[61] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[62] http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Peter-Singer-Practical-Ethics-2nd-edition.pdf
[63] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20136443
[64] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:41&version=KJV
[65] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+31%3A13-15&version=KJV
[66] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A24-25&version=KJV
[67] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:28&version=KJV