Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

Anyway now I've stopped laughing at the answers to my dinosaur question I have another question:
Why are women not allowed to speak in church?
Quote:

1 Corinthians 14

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.


You said above:

Quote:
what God requires of me is the same now as it was for the first believers in Jesus Christ
From this we can believe that it would be shameful for you or any women to speak in church therefore you dont?

I really would rather say nothing on this thread but this one I have to comment on. If you keep in context what Paul is addressing in I Cor. 14, then you could not come to the conclusion that he is saying that women are to never talk in church. The subject he is covering is speaking in tongues and in the middle of talking about speaking in tongues is the verse you choose to cherry pick. I don't believe Paul would be talking about one subject, in the middle of that subject switch to a new subject and then switch back to talking about his original subject. For me, Paul has to be referring to women not speaking in tongues in church and he can not be referring to women remaining completely silence. Just my two cents worth.
 
For me, Paul has to be referring to women not speaking in tongues in church and he can not be referring to women remaining completely silence. Just my two cents worth.

That doesn't make any sense seeing as part of the quote is:

If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.

Anyway even if he was talking about speaking in tongues it's still more sexist drivel from the bible.
 
That doesn't make any sense seeing as part of the quote is:



Anyway even if he was talking about speaking in tongues it's still more sexist drivel from the bible.

and you have reinforced my reasons why speaking up is not a good idea. It always ends up in an insult being hurled rather than staying on topic. I find it hard that the explanation doesn't make sense. We meet very few people that we have a conversation with who, in the middle of the conversation, changes the subject to something unrelated, talk about that for a couple sentences, and then switch back to the original subject. In an attempt to try to clarify, let's back up one more step. The Corinthian church was way out of line and had allowed pagan type worship to come amongst them. Paul is not happy while he is writing this letter to them, so almost the entire letter is a letter of him straightening these folks out. One of the items he felt he needed to address was women taking over their services in a leadership role, thus his comment that we are discussing now. It would not make sense to me that he is telling women to never speak, especially since he gives guidelines in I Corinthians 11 for when they are praying or prophesying. Both require speaking out loud during a worship service. Paul is addressing a church that is out of order and is addressing that church in such a way as to attempt to reestablish order.
 
Last edited:
Kryst,

I am still waiting for the answer to the Incest dilemma?
 
I know, real life gets in the way however, being a single woman I have things to do, and people to see. I haven't forgotten, and will answer.

I did a little googling on it a few nights ago and found a site that looked like it was sound, as far as from a Christian standpoint. But wanted to do a little more research on it, to decide whether or not I agree with what the guy was saying.

But here is the site I was looking at.


In other news.

In further answer to Brianwarnock in the abortion thread:

you would never kill, in any circumstances, not even to protect your wife and children?

My original answer was:

When it comes down to these things, I know murder is wrong. I don't know how to answer your question. I will talk with my pastor about this question as it is a good one. (I'll have a better answer for that in a few days. Off the top of my head the difference is probably self-defense vs. murder, but I am not sure.) But please, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to set myself up as judge over life and death. I have certainly not been given the authority to do so. I am also as equal of a sinner to anyone else, so I am in no position to judge another's actions. Anything I say, is based on God's law, He is the ultimate Judge. So I will fight for the Truth, but in the end, I am not responsible for the outcome on either side of the line.

Edit: of couse in my case it would be my "husband and children" :p

I talked with my pastor this weekend, and he confirmed something with me. When the Bible talks about "Thou shalt not kill" That is translated most effectively as murder. Wars do not constitute murder and defending your family does not constitute murder. He told me that there is a reference to a right to defend your family in Leviticus, but I have not had an opportunity to look it up yet. I wanted to answer what I remembered of our conversation before I forgot it.
 
Excuse me, I suggest you ask your pastor why millions of Europeans don't agree with such a remark

That's OK, I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. I am just answering the question posed to me.

And as I don't want to have to explain my complete position on everything every time I answer a question, please see previous posts where I make comments about unjust wars, I think a lot of the time, something being considered murder or not is a heart issue. But again, I don't think this is something anyone will agree with me on. And in the end it doesn't matter, because as plenty of people have pointed out, I will not change your minds, and you will not change mine. However, at least the answer is out there. :)
 
Thank you for answering Kryst, fortunately I have been following this thread though not posting to it.

Brian
 
Sorry, I probably should have put it in the other one.... :o

Don't worry, I can't complain since it was i who suggested that you open this thread, or atleast commented that the other was becoming a religious discussion . :)

Brian
 
Excuse me, I suggest you ask your pastor why millions of Europeans don't agree with such a remark

Millions of European probably see the other party's aggression as murder, but see their own defensive response as justified. I am guessing that any reasonable person would see it that way. But then, of course, there is Rich's comment... Oh, wait, did I just try to utter an oxymoron? "Rich" and "reasonable response" in the same train of thought? Oh, pshaw!
 
I find it hard that the explanation doesn't make sense. We meet very few people that we have a conversation with who, in the middle of the conversation, changes the subject to something unrelated, talk about that for a couple sentences, and then switch back to the original subject.

So let's assume for a moment you are correct, and that this verse means that women should not talk in tongues in church. What does the part about asking their husband mean?

I think there's no doubt that the bible is sexist; you'd be strained to find anyone who has put much time into reading it who would disagree. Taken historically this makes sense, as women have been subservient to men throughout civilization. Heck, in the USA, women have only been able to vote for 80 years. That might seem like along time, but in an overall sense, that's a drop in a bucket.
 
So let's assume for a moment you are correct, and that this verse means that women should not talk in tongues in church. What does the part about asking their husband mean?

I think there's no doubt that the bible is sexist; you'd be strained to find anyone who has put much time into reading it who would disagree. Taken historically this makes sense, as women have been subservient to men throughout civilization. Heck, in the USA, women have only been able to vote for 80 years. That might seem like along time, but in an overall sense, that's a drop in a bucket.

I am not answering the question you posed to Shaneman, but I have read the Bible extensively, have been taught from it, read books about it, etc... And, I don't think it is sexist. People who twist it for their own purposes put that spin on it, again it's a sin that happens when people use scripture out of context to suit their purposes, which is what a lot of people (men) have done and do to oppress women. But God does not do that, God created both men and women in His image, so both were created equal, with equal faculties. But He did create one first, hence the hierchical order of Bible, which when sin entered the picture gave rise to illusions of men being better then women.
 
Kryst,

Any update on the Incest question yet?

Nope, I know I know, it seems like I am not going to answer :).... The truth is, I have been busy lately, I haven't been home until late everynight, and have just fallen into bed as soon as I get home. I am busy tonight as well, but should have time tomorrow evening.

Have you looked at the site I posted yesterday? I found it interesting.
 
Kryst,

I cannot get onto the site, my companies firewall blocks it.

Is there an answer to this, as I am suspecting that their isn't one, that it is simply another contradiction in the Bible, which in my opinion is pretty poor of God to create the world through incest and then forbid it and give no reason for forbidding it, guess it is a good job that it wasn't forbidden at all times or we wouldn't be here eh..
 
Kryst,

I cannot get onto the site, my companies firewall blocks it.

Is there an answer to this, as I am suspecting that their isn't one, that it is simply another contradiction in the Bible, which in my opinion is pretty poor of God to create the world through incest and then forbid it and give no reason for forbidding it, guess it is a good job that it wasn't forbidden at all times or we wouldn't be here eh..

Well, there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, it is our understanding of it that is usually wrong, or we have interpreted the scripture without understanding context, or using other scripture to help shed light on the problem.

I'm sorry you can't look at the site. It's for that same reason that I have to provide an answer during the evenings. I cannot surf the internet at work, nor can I peruse my Bible at work. So I will, and have planned on all along, provide the answer here. Just as I have stated in a previous post, I have been very busy lately. It happens to all of us I am sure. :)
 
I am not answering the question you posed to Shaneman, but I have read the Bible extensively, have been taught from it, read books about it, etc... And, I don't think it is sexist.

But, understandably so. The bible is your entire life, it gives you guidance, it gives you purpose, it is what your existence depends upon. You believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful deity inspired the writings of this book, so you are not able to see the negative sides of it. You have what we secularists refer to as "Bible blinders".

People who twist it for their own purposes put that spin on it, again it's a sin that happens when people use scripture out of context to suit their purposes, which is what a lot of people (men) have done and do to oppress women.

Context is very important, which should make you wonder how accurate the context you are hearing from your pastors is. Humans are horrible communicators by and large. Do you really think the words of the bible (which have been altered several times, King James' version, as an example) are interpreted the same today as they were 500 years ago? 1000 years ago?
 
But, understandably so. The bible is your entire life, it gives you guidance, it gives you purpose, it is what your existence depends upon. You believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful deity inspired the writings of this book, so you are not able to see the negative sides of it. You have what we secularists refer to as "Bible blinders".

Context is very important, which should make you wonder how accurate the context you are hearing from your pastors is. Humans are horrible communicators by and large. Do you really think the words of the bible (which have been altered several times, King Jame's version, as an example) are interpreted the same today as they were 500 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Adam, I know this is hard for people to accept. But Faith in something unproven is what Christianity is all about. It's about knowing something with your heart that you can't know with your mind. Given the all-inclusive nature of sin, I know that my mind, and thoughts are just as rebellious and capable of sin as my emotions and actions are. My reasoning, logically, has also been affected by sin. It is only through Faith in God's sovereign hand, and trusting Him, that anything in the Bible can be trusted. It is not about blindly trusting words that can be flawed. Given a changed heart, one that has been freed from sin, and given new eyes to see with (by God, through faith in Christ), I am able to trust what the Bible says. It was inspired by God, the translators of the Bible always go to original texts. I don't read every version of the Bible available, only those that I know the methods of translation are sound. God's hand is on this earth, not as a Deity who is just watching, but He is sovereignly in control of this Earth, exacting His plan, in His time. And this I believe by Faith, which has been given to me by God, I cannot prove anything to you, only share what I believe. So you are right, I can only tell you what I have been taught, studied and observed. As do you....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom