The Topic of Women - Rebuttal

Daniel's Rebuttal
Well it seems like Daniel has got a little bit upset. He's failing at his mission of caricaturing Christianity and demagoguing, so he's blaming his failure on "willful ignorance" and "confirmation bias." Well, to put it simply Daniel: no. Our readers aren't ignorant. You're just doing a crappy job.
Daniel continually pleas for his audience to have an open mind (something he himself lacks) and "to look at each argument objectively and judge based off of actual logic and reason rather than hold onto unreasonable explanations." Well I've got news for Daniel! We do! We're not stupid! And it's very clear to everyone which one of has well grounded claims and which one of us desperately clings to illogical ones.
I'm very pleased that we are having this discussion in the written form, because it's very easy for everyone to go back and look at what was said in previous blogs. I'd recommend Daniel do this because right off the bat, he seems to forget what he himself has said. Yes Daniel we all know that you're in favor of women's rights (though these last couple of blog posts did get us thinking about that), but we'd just like you to know that we are too. All of us think women are equal to men and we'd like you to stop assuming that we don't, because when you argue as if we don't think this way, you're creating a strawman (I can also link things, and not to mention, being a hypocrite based on your strange obsession with posting links about fallacies.) Now you say that you don't think God hates women. We sincerely apologize. We clearly misunderstood you when you said that "[women are] also barely even seen as people in the Lord’s eyes." Be that as it may, we're extraordinarily confused by your short term memory loss concerning the story of Samson. In your rebuttal, you said that you've never claimed that it was sexist propaganda, yet this is a direct quote from your original assertion: "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)." So please, go figure out what it is you're trying to say, memorize it, make every effort imaginable to make sure it stays in your brain, and then lecture everyone else on willful ignorance.
Daniel's quotes from the Old Testament are relatively easy to dissect. Every single one of them is torn out of context, obviously, but you don't need a theology degree to realize that Deuteronomy was set in ancient times, with an extraordinarily different culture than one we have today. I'd need a separate blog to go through every single verse, (there's plenty of resources available online that explain certain passages of the Mosaic law for those that are interested) but I'll focus on one, the passage concerning the rape of a virgin. In ancient times, virginity was a very important part of society and culture. Men and women were expected to be virgins at the time of marriage. If virginity was lost, they'd usually be shunned and unable to marry ever again. This law was a method of protection against this. It forced the man to marry and take care of the girl whom he dishonored and take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
Now Daniel's other misquotations of Scripture are even easier to deal with. For example, he points to Apostle Paul being sexist when he said that woman was created after man. Ok Daniel. I believe what we have here is a non-sequitur (yay for more links!) Paul was stating fact. Man was created first and woman second, just like I wrote this blog second, after my first one. This doesn't mean my second blog is inferior to my first one and the fact that woman was created after man doesn't mean she's his property. And just to be extra sure people like Daniel didn't try to mischaracterize his words, Paul threw this in just to be sure everyone understood: " 11 Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman; 12 For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author]," -1 Cor. 11:11-12. By the way Daniel, the only way the New Testament can say that "women are subservient and under the authority of men" is if you cherry pick certain verses and ignore a plethora of others (which is exactly what you do.) And it's painfully obvious that when Paul discusses head coverings for women and men, he does so within a cultural aspect. And the last tidbit at the end you referred to? It's actually not an end, but the beginning of new train of thought. "16 Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally. 17 But in what I instruct [you] next I do not commend [you], because when you meet together, it is not for the better but for the worse." 1 Cor. 11:16-17 (It pays to read Scripture in context.)
If you want a good example of willful ignorance, look no further than Daniel's next couple paragraphs. "Just because women lead Israel at certain times and fulfilled God's agenda, does not logically follow that they aren't property of men and not human beings." Ummm… Actually it does Daniel. So you know when I pointed out examples of women doing the same things as men, being capable of the same things as men, and even playing equal roles as men in terms of importance (if not more important), it does logically follow that they're not inferior to, not the property of, and not dirtier than men are. (That last one really bugs me. I mean whoever thinks that women are more dirty, smelly, and filthy than men really needs to take a trip down to the boys locker room. You'll have a Road to Damascus moment, trust me.) And what's up with that attack on donkeys? Don't make fun of donkeys. Everybody loves donkeys! And spoons too. Poor spoons. Seems like nothing can evade the wrath of Daniel.
Daniel's claims and arguments are steadily growing more and more ridiculous. I think we'll see this trend continue. Daniel is out on a mission: to portray Christians as stupid herds of cattle unaware of their own teachings. We're not going to let him. We'll be right here, disproving, and disassembling his arguments every week. Thanks for reading! Hope you enjoy my blog.