Wednesday, October 17, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity

I wonder why Harry McCall even bothers to make arguments using the Biblical text because he never bothers to get the text correct. Who edits the Debunking Christianity anyway? Why does he think that Paul's writing is misogynistic? Is that what the text really saying? Can he substantiate his conclusions? Nope.

The first mark for Paul against women is that THEY ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken from Adam (who alone is created in the image of God). In 1 Corinthians 11: 7b – 9 Paul states this fact: “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

That does not mean that women are less than men or that women are not created in the image of  God. Paul would have agreed with Genesis 1:26-28

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:26-28

God created men and women in God's image. Genesis 2 gives the details  of how God did it. Paul is not contradicting scripture. Paul is, instead, discussing the roles of men and women  not ontology.  McCall did not show how Paul's words elevates men over women.  Let's look at  what Paul wrote that shows how this works out even clearer (I wonder why McCall does not quote the whole passage?)..

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Think about what the order of roles that is being stated.Woman submits to man. Christ submits to God. Paul believed that Jesus is God therefore Jesus is not inferior to God. 

11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. - Titus 2:11-14

Therefore, extending the parallel that Paul is using, women are not inferior to men. And what about verse 13? Paul was not explaining that women were inferior in any way.

Secondly for Paul, when in a worship service all women MUST keep their faces veiled so the glory of God will be revealed in the men in attendance of whom God created alone in his image: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” (1 Corinthians 11: 5 - 6)

Verse 13 kills McCall's whole argument.

Simply put, all women must keep their ungodly faces covered with a veil if their hair has been cut short (shaved) or – if they don’t have a veil – then let them use their long hair to cover their faces. For if there are angles in the worship service, these angles would be shocked to see any woman worshipping with their face uncovered taking away the glory of God found only in men: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11: 10)

So why did Paul say "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16)? Simple: McCall is wrong.

For Paul, all men must keep their hair short as to display the glory of God: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” (1 Corinthians 11: 7) and “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11: 14)

More importantly, in Paul’s view all women are the deceivers descended directly from Eve who alone listened to the serpent then mislead Adam: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” (1Timothy 2: 14)

The Bible does not lay the blame of sin on Eve, But Adam. Eve was deceived. She was innocent. Adam had the responsibility and the failure. 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— - Romans 5:12

This being the case, Paul demands: “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14: 34 - 35)

This cannot mean that women are not supposed to ever teach or preach in the Church. I've written more about at this link and you should also read here.


“Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (I Tim. 2: 11 – 14)

Thus all women have two strikes against them over and above Original Sin, and these two curses have been pasted to ALL women just as Adam and Eve’s collective disobedience has been pasted down on all humanity:

Um what curses?  

A. Women ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken out of Adam making them forever inferior to men thus requiring them to cover their faces while in the worship assembly.

Already shown that this is not true. 

B. Women are weak and gullible in that only the woman was tricked by the serpent, who in turn deceived the man. Thus for Paul, all women are simple minded and gullible and should NEVER be given the chance to mislead men again.

The woman were gullible while the man outright rebelled against God. He knew better,. I admit that many people look at this point the way that McCall presents it, but that is not what the Bible says.

In the so called Lord’s Prayer, Jesus made an emphatic statement: “γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς” (with γενηθήτω in the aorist imperative) that God’s will (θέλημα) must be done in Heaven as upon earth.

Yes. And just what is God's will that will be on Heaven as it is on earth?

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29

Now when we put this statement in with Paul’s theology of women, sadly women bear a huge curse above men that can NEVER be forgiven either here on earth or in Heaven!

Um no. Not even close. It's only through Christ that we - male and female - are free. This isn't the point women are less than man. Just the contrary and McCall has failed to demonstrate that the Bible says women are inferior to men.

Harry McCall 

Please Pray for Harry McCall

Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity
Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. Pure hogwash.

    I found your old blog post about me today, from 2010.

    So I thought I'd say hi. Hi, christian!

    What's on the belief agenda today? Unicorns?

    Believers believe and thinkers think, but unfortunately believers usually also believe that they are capable of thinking. That's when the trouble starts.

  2. And uh what does unicorns have to do with anything? Godlessness is empty and stupid. When the godless think they have a moral understanding or a grasp of spiritual things faceplants are inevitable. Case in point. Stating that my counter arguments are hogwash without demonstrating that they should be cast either means you are ignorant, dishonest, unable to grasp them, or all of the above. Given what godlessness leaves you with, I'd go with all of the above.

  3. ...unable to grasp them...

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!! Keep telling yourself whatever it is you need to keep telling yourself.

  4. Given that you neither one of you can explain why the Bible is incorrect on this, you must be unable to understand it. Extremely Pathetic.

  5. Marcus,
    Indeed, Harry McCall is an unscholarly embarrassment. He ought to be thankful that his audience consists of pseudo-skeptics who would not check his citations and quotations for context even if the destiny of their eternal souls was on the line.
    But my point is: even if we were to grant that the Bible is misogynistic, exactly what ethical premise did Harry McCall, Lofuts, et al. provide for condemning misogyny?

  6. They have not offered any ethical premise but instead pretend that they have the moral high ground. Nor do I think they can provide such an ethical premise.