Logically valid!KR Wordgazer wrote:The way I see it, there's a self-contradiction inherent in complementarian thinking. It goes like this [when tricked out with symbols ]:
(1) Women are equal to men because God created men and women in His image. (Premise)
(2) God mandated that women be restricted to roles that are subordinate to men. (Premise)
(3) God designs things to fill their purpose. (Premise)
(4) If God restricts women to only subordinate roles, then God designed women to be subordinate to men. (Premise: follows naturally from (2) and (3))
(5) If women are subordinate by design, then men are designed to rule women. (Premise, implied by the definitions of design and subordinate)
(5') Therefore, if God restricts women to only subordinate roles, then men are designed to rule women. (follows from (4) and (5)
(6) Therefore, women are not equal to men. (Modus ponens: (5'), (2))
How can men be equal to women while ruling women? How can a man be more authoritative than a woman, and yet be the same as her?Complementarians will reply that the equality is in value only, not in roles and function. As in...our souls have equal value before God, but we were created to have unequal roles.
But what they don't understand that what they are saying is fundamentally self-contradictory.
We should probably distinguish how men and women are equal if they are both created in God's image. Obviously they differ in anatomy, which entails that they differ in other respects.
...I think that we should probably base this in Trinitarian theology. The fact of God's trinity (or triunity?) should imply that beings made in his image will distinctively echo that particular attribute. This does not mean that you and I are each three persons: although God is omniscient, we only know in part.
For example, I know very little about the Trinity, so I am likely to commit a heresy before we finish this thread. Nevertheless, it seems that authority, submission, relationships, etc. will all need discussing.
Children are equal in value, but not equal in function-- because of their youth and level of development. In development and understanding, children are not equal to adults. Everyone will acknowledge that.
Yes. Likewise, boys are equal to men in intrinsic moral value (if we take that view--it might not square with Calvinism ); but in function they differ. We all agree that boys should not go to war or get married.
(Here comes the potentially heretical part )
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, but the Son did not descend onto the Spirit after He was baptized.
We have to distinguish between the senses of the word "equal." How are they equal in God's image? How might they be unequal?If it's fundamentally illogical for two ideas we hold to both exist at the same time, then only one can be true, or neither-- but not both. So the Bible can't be saying both that women and men are equal, and that they're not.
The other idea-- that the Bible says God designed women and men equally in His image,
Men and women are equally created-in-God's-image; we want to find out whether this implies that they are equal in authority or roles.
...Aaand thus beginneth a stream of logic-chopping posts. I need to give you and Metacrock (or M) credit for actually having a stance on this; I only have a prejudice which comes from my parents, G.K. Chesterton, and certain Calvinists.