How do YOU interpret the Bible (obvious CC)

[Hunter's Moon]

***Disclaimer: I do NOT mean for this to be a debate. I am simply asking opinions and your own views. It is impossible to debate against someone's views, so please, do not.

 

I have lately been struggling with a lot of statements in the Bible pertaining to women.

 

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 

"A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7)

 

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7)

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14)

 

There are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

Is this just Paul's view, or did God show Paul these views and Paul transcribed them?

 

Doesn't it in the Bible say that scripture in the Bible is all coming from God? (Sorry, can't think of the specific verse.)

 

If that is so, and I am pretty sure there is a verse like that, then those views above are God's view? Or did Paul twist them? Or did he simply add his own views?

 

I just can't wrap my head around a few of them and am looking for how other women view/interpret them.

[Parrothead]

Personally I think it was fine for the time it was written. I can't quote chapter and verse but I know somewhere in there (I'm too lazy to search it out.) is a verse that tells a man to take his brother's widow as his own.

 

Since we aren't doing that anymore I'm pretty sure those verses you've quoted don't apply in the strictest sense of interpretation.

 

I also believe the Bible was written with allegory, hyperbole, prose and poetry, metaphor and the like instead of a strict literal interpretation.

 

I think the basic message of the Bible is timeless. Times have changed. I don't think the Bible is meant to be used as a way to oppress women. In a modern society that is what I feel those verses you quoted try to do.

 

Just my opinion. I'm not going to argue any point with anyone and I won't respond to any replies. Stephanie if you want me to elaborate or have a question about what I posted, you can PM me.

[OnTheBrink]

It depends on the book.

 

OT--overall, history. But, I take Song of Solomon and Psalms as poetry.

NT--I take literally, but with the understanding that some issues are cultural, or are issues of personal conviction.

[Jenny Piaaree]

Just commenting on 1 Peter 3:7: My translation reads

"You husbands continue dwelling with them in like manner [referring back to 1 Pet. 2:21, where it says Jesus left us a model to follow closely] with [your wives] according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since you are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered."

 

So it's not saying that women are "weaker" in the sense of lesser; on the contrary, it is saying that women are like a fine china vase rather than an everyday crockware pot, and should be treated with honor as a thing of high value. Men should understand their wives and not condescend to them as "just women." Interesting that if men don't treat their wives with honor, God says their prayers may be hindered.

[asta]

I don't think Paul expected anyone to be reading his mail 2000 years later.

 

 

a

[LizzyBee]

Let your women keep silence.... This is a mistranslation. The Greek word used in the original means to speak quietly, not to be silent. The explanation given by some scholars is that women were not used to the new freedom they had in the church, and they were shouting out and being disruptive; thus, Paul's directive to tone it down.

 

The woman is the glory of man... I think of this in the same vein as the saying, "Behind every great man is a great woman."

 

Generally speaking, women do tend to be physically weaker than men. Of course, this is not true of every couple. It is true in my case, and I appreciate my dh doing the yardwork and home repairs that require more strength than I have.

 

I do not permit a woman to teach... The Greek verb is in the tense that means continuing action, so it does not rule out women teaching men on an occasional basis or the possibility than a man might learn something from a woman. :D But I think generally speaking, many men tend to be more open to learning from other men, and many women tend to be more open to learning from other women.

 

It is II Timothy 3:16 that says that all Scripture is God-breathed.

 

I think many of Jesus' and Paul's words seem archaic in our time, but they were radical in their time and culture. Within the context of each controversial passage, we have to ask ourselves whether the exact mandate is to be followed in our current culture, or is there an example of progressivism that should be followed instead.

 

I do believe that the entire Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I also believe we have to look at context (historical, cultural, within the Scriptures, original languages) to understand the Bible correctly.

Edited November 29, 2010 by LizzyBee

[Alenee]

I find it telling how all of the responses thus far are so vastly different. Maybe consider that we are all to DO what it says and if we cannot do what it says, are we really submitting to God or are we trying to make God 'work' the way we want Him to work?

 

If Scripture is God-breathed, it is timeless, whether or not Paul knew his letters would be read 2000 years later is meaningless. They weren't his words...they were God's breathed through Paul.

[AngelaNYC]

Personally I think it was fine for the time it was written. I can't quote chapter and verse but I know somewhere in there (I'm too lazy to search it out.) is a verse that tells a man to take his brother's widow as his own.

 

Since we aren't doing that anymore I'm pretty sure those verses you've quoted don't apply in the strictest sense of interpretation.

 

I also believe the Bible was written with allegory, hyperbole, prose and poetry, metaphor and the like instead of a strict literal interpretation.

 

I think the basic message of the Bible is timeless. Times have changed. I don't think the Bible is meant to be used as a way to oppress women. In a modern society that is what I feel those verses you quoted try to do.

 

:iagree:

[asta]

If Scripture is God-breathed, it is timeless, whether or not Paul knew his letters would be read 2000 years later is meaningless. They weren't his words...they were God's breathed through Paul.

 

The OP asked for opinions. I gave one. I respect yours. Please respect the one I gave.

 

 

asta

[delaney]

I feel it is an intricate story put together by many, many people. Since it was obviously a work of writing from a God worshipping and or Christian standpoint I feel like it probably really isn't all that accurate at times if you know what I mean. I think the underlying meaning and basis are all that you need and I don't take it literally at all. I agree with what Parrothead said!

Here is an example:

DD asked me how did God put plants on the earth a day before he put the sun in the sky and they didn't all freeze. My answer was that it is a story about how the world was created but not necessarily EXACTLY the way it happened.

Edited November 28, 2010 by delaney

[HayesW]

I believe the Bible is the true and literal word of God. I believe that Paul said what God told him to say, that his words were literally "God breathed." I believe that the statements in the New Testament are to be followed. God's word is truth and is unchanging.

[Laurie4b]

I think that all Scripture is inspired by God, but then there is the matter of interpretation. There are some genres that are not meant to be taken literally, as they are poetic or other imagery, but what you've quoted here is instruction from the NT, which would tend to mean that they are to be applied literally. However, there is the matter of interpretation of whether a specific command is meant for a specific situation or not. For instance, when Paul tells Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach, it is not a command for all of us to drink wine when we have a bellyache. That one is pretty clear, but others aren't. Paul's instructions to women in I Corinthians are very difficult to sort out. It seems that we are missing a piece (or pieces) of the puzzle that would have been understood in the community to which he wrote it. Additionally, we have to use other Scripture to understand Scripture that seems more obscure. For instance, Paul also wrote in Galatians that "In Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman." In the very same passage, Paul says that a woman who prays or prophecies should wear a head covering. Prophesying was definitely a gift to the broader church (See I Cor 12-14) so it seems that Paul is allowing for some speaking by women in church in this very passage.

 

Faithful churches may differ in the way they interpret women speaking/teaching in church/headcoverings because it is difficult to say what if any specific local problems (not quite as local as Timothy's tummy, but local nonetheless) that Paul may have been addressing that were not applied across the board even in that culture. Furthermore, the NT itself indicates that some things adjust for culture. For instance, Paul says he became as a Jew to win Jews and as a Greek to win Greeks. So there may be broader applications of the gospel to that culture that may not continue to apply.

 

I'd suggest first that you look to your own church community for how they interpret this. Talk with the pastor or priest and other women there. For instance, I wear my hair on the long side because of the head-covering verses, but I don't wear a head covering because it would call attention to itself in our church, and since that issue is not clear to me, I go with the practice of our church community. You can also study books from different points of view on the issue and may find some help there.

 

For the other verse of Peter's you quoted:

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7)

 

I think it is true that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. I experience this as a deep biological truth that if I am walking down the street, the average man I encounter could take me at will. This was true even when I was a young athlete. At my prime, I may have been able to physically best a small number of men, but in general, no. So in any encounter with a man, I think this is there even at a subconscious level. When I used to work with extremely violent youth, I noticed that the build of the staff in charge greatly impacted the kids' behavior--even though the staff could in no way be aggressive in return. So a tall male, especially one with a bass voice, was several steps ahead of a shorter male, even if the shorter male had better behavior management skills etc. These kids had very little socialization/civilization overlying basic biology; it really reinforced to me some basic biological processing that goes on.

 

So i understand this verse to mean that a man needs to be considerate knowing that even if it is unconscious to a woman, that there is this subtle power imbalance. This makes it all the more necessary that he is careful with the way he uses power: not raising the volume on his booming bass voice, refraining from any physical displays of power when he's angry (including simply standing up towering over a woman), not using his (typical) financial advantage, etc. He is to be considerate and treat his wife (and I think by extension other women) with respect. You didn't quote the next part--or his prayers are in danger of not being answered. God is not messing with this. Now if you put that into the cultural context, that is even more of a powerful pro-woman statement.

 

While the Bible was written by various human authors, I do hold to the essential God-breathed nature of it. Basic interpretive principles: take it as it would normally be taken for that genre of literature, compare to the whole counsel of Scripture--does it fit with what the Bible is saying elsewhere? New Testament interprets the Old Testament (and there are significant shifts, for instance, when Jesus declares all food clean.) Do look at the cultural context to help understand meaning. We do need to know what it would have meant to the people who first received it before being able to understand what it means to us today. God has not left us alone--He has given us the Holy Spirit, which indwells all believers. Therefore, I think more is needed than individual wrestling with the text: I believe a Christian needs to interpret Scripture in community--first the local community but also listening to the voices of contemporary Christian communities around the world (I think of this as the horizontal dimension) as well as what Christians have thought in the past (the vertical dimension over time). There are a few areas that are not as clear by these principles, and they may be unclear for a purpose.

 

Hope this helps.

[milovany]

In our church, Scripture is part of Holy Tradition. The apostles and their successors, through the Holy Spirit, gave us both the written Scriptures and their interpretation. The Bible says that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" -- that's what this means; the church provides both the foundation (written words) and the pillar/supports (interpretation/meaning). So when we wonder what something means, we look into what the apostles and church fathers taught.

Edited November 29, 2010 by milovaný

[KatieH]

In our church, Scripture is part of Holy Tradition. The apostles and their successors, through the Holy Spirit, gave us both the written Scriptures and their interpretation. The Bible says that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" -- that's what this means; the church provides both the foundation (written words) and the pillar/supports (interpretation/meaning). So when we wonder what something means, we look into what the apostles and church fathers taught.

 

This is basically what I believe, only from a traditional/small o orthodox Catholic position.

[milovany]

This is basically what I believe, only from a traditional/small o orthodox Catholic position.

 

I didn't understand what this meant at first (I am a dense bug sometimes!). Now I see that I could say we're coming from a traditional/small c catholic Orthodox position, tee hee. :D

 

ETA - I hope that came across the way it was intended!! I was poking fun at my own ignorance.

[Onceuponatime]

I believe that the Bible contains words of God, but that every word written in it is not necessarily directly from God. IMO, when Paul says scripture is God breathed, he was not talking about his own writings, but about the scriptures that he read and heard read. Even then, it was taught in ancient times that scripture had two meanings, the literal and the allegorical. The allegorical was assumed to be the most perfect and true meaning. This desire to take every single word and sentence at its most literal (in English, at that) is fairly modern.

 

I believe that Jesus Christ is the "Word of God" in the flesh. The rest is words of fallible men about God. As such they are still useful for teaching and instruction in righteousness, but they need to be weighed against what we understand from Jesus about God's mercy and justice. There is so much doctrin that is open to interpretation, and most of it will probably not matter when it comes to having an eternal relationship with God. The nitty gritty will be: have we learned how to love unselfishly, not have we covered our head or believed in a 6 day creation.

 

I believe that man's understanding about God and his nature has evolved and is still evolving.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Onceuponatime

[KatieH]

I didn't understand what this meant at first (I am a dense bug sometimes!). Now I see that I could say we're coming from a traditional/small c catholic Orthodox position, tee hee. :D

 

ETA - I hope that came across the way it was intended!! I was poking fun at my own ignorance.

 

:lol: No problem, I got what you meant (I totally got you on the small c catholic Orthodox, lol! I've gotten used to saying "small o orthodox" because I found if I don't, people think I mean Eastern Orthodox.

[Parrothead]

I didn't understand what this meant at first (I am a dense bug sometimes!). Now I see that I could say we're coming from a traditional/small c catholic Orthodox position, tee hee. :D

 

ETA - I hope that came across the way it was intended!! I was poking fun at my own ignorance.

Hmm.. I wonder if she meant traditional Catholic instead of orthodox Catholic.

 

Hopefully she'll come back and clear it all up. :D

 

Never mind! Katie and I posted at the same time.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

***Disclaimer: I do NOT mean for this to be a debate. I am simply asking opinions and your own views. It is impossible to debate against someone's views, so please, do not.

 

I have lately been struggling with a lot of statements in the Bible pertaining to women.

 

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 

"A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7)

 

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7)

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14)

 

There are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

Is this just Paul's view, or did God show Paul these views and Paul transcribed them?

 

Doesn't it in the Bible say that scripture in the Bible is all coming from God? (Sorry, can't think of the specific verse.)

 

If that is so, and I am pretty sure there is a verse like that, then those views above are God's view? Or did Paul twist them? Or did he simply add his own views?

 

I just can't wrap my head around a few of them and am looking for how other women view/interpret them.

 

I do take the Bible literally. But, you have to go deeper than face value when studying the Bible or it can be taken severely out of context and that's when you have people using these types of verses against women as a whole.

 

There are several things to do when studying particular verses:

 

1. Look up the historical context of the scripture. There is a lot of good reasons that some of those verses are in the Bible. One thing I always fight is reading the Bible with my 21st century mindset and world view when it was written in the 1st century (the New Testament anyway).

 

2. Look up the cultural context. I'm a white American. I don't understand Jewish tradition or their culture and it helps when I study that.

 

3. Do a word study on the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic text. It helps a lot since the translations we use aren't always very accurate.

 

Here's a good website for being able to do that to some degree:

 

Blue Letter Bible

 

I have my views on these scriptures, but, those are my views fwiw. I always encourage people to seek out the truth for themselves. God will reveal it to you because He wants us to know Him!

 

Fwiw--I don't believe it's because God wants women to sit mindlessly in the pews and not be effective in His kingdom. But, that's all I'm going to say on that!

[ktgrok]

This book might help you. It was required reading for one of my college religion classes. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Teaching-Paul-Selected-Issues/dp/0687332931/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291000545&sr=8-2

[Mimm]

Verses like these are a huge stumbling block for me. I was raised in a very conservative, fundamentalist family. But I can no longer stomach being a second class citizen in my religion. I'm questioning all the beliefs I was raised with. It's a very uncomfortable place to be in. :)

[milovany]

Verses like these are a huge stumbling block for me. I was raised in a very conservative, fundamentalist family. But I can no longer stomach being a second class citizen in my religion. I'm questioning all the beliefs I was raised with. It's a very uncomfortable place to be in. :)

 

Maybe check into different traditions of your religion. We were baptized into the Eastern Orthodox Church this past year (after many years in both conservative and charismatic Protestant churches), and part of what is refreshing is the deep honor and respect shown to women.

[MamaSheep]

***Disclaimer: I do NOT mean for this to be a debate. I am simply asking opinions and your own views. It is impossible to debate against someone's views, so please, do not.

 

I have lately been struggling with a lot of statements in the Bible pertaining to women.

 

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 

"A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7)

 

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7)

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14)

 

There are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

Is this just Paul's view, or did God show Paul these views and Paul transcribed them?

 

Doesn't it in the Bible say that scripture in the Bible is all coming from God? (Sorry, can't think of the specific verse.)

 

If that is so, and I am pretty sure there is a verse like that, then those views above are God's view? Or did Paul twist them? Or did he simply add his own views?

 

I just can't wrap my head around a few of them and am looking for how other women view/interpret them.

 

My opinion is that many of these verses are the sort of thing Peter was describing when he spoke of Paul’s epistles as containing "some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

 

If it’s ok with you, I think I’d like to talk about my understanding of these passages (and any others you’d like to add to the mix) one at a time, rather than try to generalize too much. But I would like to preface with a few general thoughts first. (I’m going to use the KJV because it’s what I’m most familiar with and best at finding things in, but I hope you will look the verses up in your own translation as well, if the KJV language usage is too archaic

 

For one thing, it is clear that the Savior cherished women. A woman was chosen as the means for him to come to Earth to live among us. He taught women as well as men, blessed them, and praised them for their faith. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead out of concern for Mary and Martha. He saved the woman taken in adultery, and was gentle with her. He stopped and encouraged the woman who was healed after touching his robe as he went past. He announced himself as the living water to a Sumerian woman at the well. On the cross he showed his respect and concern for his mother. After his resurrection, he showed himself first to a woman.

 

Secondly, in this discussion I think it helps to bear firmly in mind what Jesus taught in Matthew 20 about people in positions of authority in his church:

 

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransomfor many

It’s important, in my opinion, to understand that the word “minister” here, when used as a verb as in verse 28, means something along the lines of providing service to or caring for, attending to the needs of, providing for the wants and necessities of—that sort of thing. And in verse 26, where it's a noun, it means a person who does these sorts of things for someone. In these verses Jesus is explaining that leadership among his followers should not operate like leadership among outsiders, whose leaders lead by domination and compulsion. Rather, among Jesus’ followers leaders are to serve the people, not boss them around. He offers his own life as an example, pointing out that he did not come to Earth and live among us in order that we should cater to his needs, or become his servants; rather, he became our servant, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, showing mercy to the sinner, teaching the seekers, comforting the sad and lonely and outcast in society, even to the point where he gave up his life for the benefit of those he served. This is the model of leadership, or “headship” that should be followed among the disciples of Christ. So when Jesus, or those he left behind to teach, tell us that the man is the “head” of the woman (for example), if we look at it in the light of these verses, we understand that when God sets man up as the “head” of the woman, God is NOT telling the man that they can order women around and abuse and oppress them with impunity. Rather, God is giving the man a leadership assignment in which he is to “lead” through service—God will hold the man responsible for providing for the woman’s needs, providing food for her, healing her, teaching her, comforting her, serving her, even to the point of laying down his life for her. If the man is to be “chief” in his family structure, then according to Jesus, the man’s job as the “chief” is to serve his family members. If instead he is domineering and abusive, then he is acting directly counter to what Jesus taught.

 

(My kids are waiting for me. More later.)

Edited November 29, 2010 by MamaSheep
Tag problems.

[Mimm]

Maybe check into different traditions of your religion. We were baptized into the Eastern Orthodox Church this past year (after many years in both conservative and charismatic Protestant churches), and part of what is refreshing is the deep honor and respect shown to women.

 

I pm'ed you. :)

[Liz CA]

Verses like these are a huge stumbling block for me. I was raised in a very conservative, fundamentalist family. But I can no longer stomach being a second class citizen in my religion. I'm questioning all the beliefs I was raised with. It's a very uncomfortable place to be in. :)

 

This is exactly what misinterpretation leads to. Women feel inferior and at a loss as to what our position in life is supposed to be. I am so sorry that people use scripture to beat others over the head or at least make a segment of the population feel second best.

Mimm, please read what Dayle in Guatemala wrote. She is explaining very well that it is rarely helpful or even possible to just "read" the bible without knowing the background and historical context of the time.

If you came away from a conservative background believing you are anything less than the beloved child of God, treasured and redeemed, the daughter of the King, you need start over and forget most of what you have been "taught."

If we understand why something was written at the time it was written, we can understand why and what it pertains to. It makes all the difference!

[MamaSheep]

Kids are content, so I'm going to continue. :)

 

I think that in explaining my point of view on this it might be helpful to take a look next at some verses in Ephesians 5, which you didn't quote, but which run in a similar vein, and which I think are useful in understanding some of the verses you quoted. I'm going to insert some of my thoughts (since you asked for our thoughts :001_smile:) in between some of the verses.

 

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

I notice here that submission is a mutual activity, not one that goes only one direction. Submit to each other. Also, the word translated here as "submit" can also mean something along the lines of orderly, voluntary cooperation with someone else, according to Strong's Concordance.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

I think there are a couple of important things going on here. First of all, remember what Jesus said in that passage in Matthew that I quoted before? He said that those who wanted to be in charge among his followers were expected to serve those they were "over", just as Jesus served his followers. So here we are told that wives should submit to (or voluntarily cooperate with) their husbands in the same way that the church submits to Christ, right? So what does Christ do that the church is to submit to (or cooperate with)? Kindness, compassion, healing, comfort, mercy, forgiveness, assistance in becoming more than we could become on our own. Yes, Jesus gave "commandments", but they were not "orders" for people to wait on him, nor does our "obeying" them benefit Jesus in any way. Rather, they are the kinds of instructions that make our own lives better if we "obey" them--they are for OUR benefit, and not only does Jesus facilitate our obedience, he also makes up the difference for us when we are not able to do as he asks. So if wives are to submit to their husbands as the church is subject unto Christ, then everything the husband does is to be with the intent of benefitting the wife, and she should cooperate with that. Why would she not want to? I would also guess that Jesus would not want a woman to "submit" to a "false husband", or one whose leadership is contrary to Jesus's teachings, any more than he would want the church to follow a "false Christ".

 

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

And as you see, Paul's advice to the husbands confirms this view of submission. Just as Jesus admonished his disciples to lead in a manner that immitates his selfless "ministering" to his followers, Paul tells men that the love and spirit of "giving" that men ought to have toward their wives should immitate Christ's life of love and sacrifice on behalf of the church. Just as Christ worked to make us better, whole and holy, so should a husband work to build up his wife.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 

The church is spoken of as the "body of Christ"--not only does Christ cherish and nourish and care for us, but he makes us one with himself--figuratively a part of himself. Similarly, a man should consider his wife as an extension of himself, entitled to every bit of respect, honor, love, etc. that he feels is due to himself. Anything he does to shame or belittle her shames and belittles himself. Anything he does to strengthen and elevate her brings similar honor to himself. A man that loves his wife loves himself.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Paul says this might be hard to understand, but he's using Christ and the church as an analogy for the husband and wife and vice versa. But, he says, the main point is that every man should love his wife as he loves himself, and wives should treat their husbands with courtesy and respect.

 

I think this is a beautiful passage about mutual kindness and love between husband and wife, particularly emphasizing the husband's responsibilities toward his wife. I do not see it as a passage to use to "exercise dominion" over women, which Jesus taught in that passage in Matthew was not the way leadership among his people should work.

 

(To be continued.)

[MamaSheep]

(Continuing. Sorry to be so long-winded. This is something I've given some serious thought to over the years, so I'm afraid I have rather a lot to say on the subject. If you're not finding it useful just let me know and I will zip my figurative lip and leave you alone. :001_smile:)

 

Ok. So after all that background information about where I come from on this issue, I think I'd better (finally) get around to discussing some of the verses you specifically asked about. Let's start with 1 Corinthians.

 

IMO, it is helpful to look at the verses in context so I'm going to pull out big chunks of the text for us to look at. It's also helpful to remember that 1 Corinthians was not divided up into chapters and verses when Paul wrote it, that was done later to make studying the letter easier. When he wrote it, it was in a continuous letter format. For that reason, I'm going to start with 11:7, because that comes up in the letter before the verse from chapter 14, and I'm going to swipe the last couple verses from chapter 10 to look at with chapter 11, because I think they help in understanding how I interpret verse 7. So here we go.

 

10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

A couple of quick notes: "offense" in verse 32 is kind of an archaic usage, and is rendered in many translations as something like "cause to stumble". Paul has just been discussing some ways in which things believers are eating might cause some people to steer clear of Christianity because they're doing things that are not "sinful" but are considered culturally inappropriate by the people in the community in which they live (it had to do with food offerings to idols), and he's basically saying that Christians shouldn't engage in behavior that would turn anyone away from Christ, even if there's technically nothing "wrong" with the behavior, in and of itself. In verse 33 Paul says that he generally conforms to social norms, not so that people will think he's a great guy, but so that his behavior won't interfere with their ability to consider him worth listening to because he wants them to hear his message and be saved. So then the first verse of chapter 11 is an instruction for the people of Corinth, to whom the letter is addressed, to do likewise and follow Paul as Paul follows Christ. In verse 2 he praises them for what they're doing right. Verse 3 starts out with a "but", though, because now he's moving into a discussion of something else they need to work on (in addition to the food offered to idols business).

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Now, when reading this verse keep in mind what we have learned about proper godly leadership roles. The person in the "head" position is responsible for caring for the person "below" them, and the person "below" is supposed to respond to that care with gratitude and respect. So here we have man as the head of the woman, as previously described. The head of the man is Christ (and by extension, Christ is also "above" the woman in this heirarchy; Christ sacrificed all for both men and women). The head of Christ is God (who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that men and women could be saved). Christ certainly offers respect to the Father. Man ought to be properly grateful and respectful toward Christ, and woman ought to behave in a manner that shows her respect for her husband and her gratitude for his kindness and provision on her behalf.

 

Now, a couple of cultural things that I think are pertinent to these next verses.

 

One is that I understand that in that culture, at that time, adulteresses had their hair cut off as a form of public humiliation. Until it grew back, it announced to all who saw that they had been unfaithful.

 

Another is that in the Old Testament there is a particular type of vow that a person could enter into called a Nazarite vow, which could be entered into for a limited time, or for a lifetime. The vow was (as I understand it) a type of deeper dedication or commitment of oneself to God. At any rate, it involved, among other things, not cutting one's hair during the period that the person was under the Nazarite vow. So in that context, long hair on a man, in the Jewish culture, was seen as a sign of this kind of deeper dedication to God, not as something that by its nature was shameful.

 

Ok...moving on.

 

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Remember, now that Paul is giving us this verse in the context of a discussion about conforming with community customs in order to not do things that would drive people away from Christianity, and in the context of a general teaching in Christianity of showing respect for one's "head". AND, he has also just finished establishing definitions of who everyone's "head" is. A man's "head" is Christ. So in the culture of the community the people Paul is writing to, if a man prays or prophesies with a covering on his head, he is going to be interpreted by those in the community around him as being disrespectful to his "head", or Christ. (As an aside, I am curious about how this relates to the current Jewish cultural practice of men wearing head coverings while they pray. Corinth was not a predominantly Jewish place... anyway, I have no useful information on that subject so I'll hush up. It's just an area I have not yet explored in this context)

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

In the broader culture a woman who had her hair shorn might be "interpreted" as an adulteress. Evidently, in the specific community Paul was addressing, a woman with her head uncovered while praying or prophesying was showing the same kind of disrespect to her husband, and might as well chop her hair off because to the community at large it amounted to the same thing. She was dishonoring her "head", and we have just been told that her husband is her "head".

 

Also note, though, that in this verse it is not the woman's praying and prophesying in public meetings that is the problem for Paul, but the way in which the woman's dress and grooming while doing so reflect on her "head" (her husband) and his "head" (Christ) and his head (God).

 

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

So this is the verse you pulled out. In my opinion, it is saying that a man ought not to cover his head in certain situations because that would be viewed by others as disrespectful to God, and what a Christian man does reflects on God and ought to be seen as glorifying God; the "image" the man presents to the world influences the world's "image", or view, of the man's God. And since the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the man, what the woman does reflects in the same way on the man that the man's "image" reflects on God (and therefore her behavior also influences how others see God), and the woman ought to behave in ways that bring respect to the man (and the man's "head").

 

(continued...)

[MamaSheep]

(...continuing...)

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

If you go back and read the creation story in Genesis you will see that after each stage of creation God looked at what he had made and said "it is good". BUT when he created Adam God looked at what he had made and said "it is NOT good" for man to be alone. God's creation of mankind was not complete and "good" until he had created Eve out of Adam's rib. So woman came from man (who came from the dust of the Earth). Woman was created to complete and "help" man. Man was not created to complete woman. Once both of them were created, THEN the creation of man was "good".

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

 

Ok...the first part of this verse I think means that because woman was made to complete and help man, the man ought to have that position of "power", or godly authority in the sense I have been describing so that he also is helping her, making it a mutually beneficial partnership. She has a God-given responsibility to help him, he has a God-given responsibility to help her. The bit about the angels I'm not sure about. Different versions of the Bible translate this different ways, and I'm not sure what to make of it. The NLT says because the angels are watching. The ESV has a footnote that says that "angels" means messengers and refers to people who are sent to watch them (which makes some level of sense in this context). The YNG just goes ahead and translates it as "messengers" instead of angels. Most versions just say "because of the angels" and leave it at that. So...I think I will too. :)

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 

So, here Paul explains that the proper relationship between a Christian (in the Lord) man and his wife is reciprocal. Neither is without the other, they're both in it together. And he reinforces it by pointing out that just as Eve was made from Adam, so all men now come from women through birth.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul concludes by telling them they should judge for themselves whether it is approprite for women to pray with their heads uncovered. As far as "nature itself" here, looking at the Greek in a concordance, it's not necessarily referring to "nature" as we think of it, but more along the lines of "the nature of things", or one's innate sense of how things are. I think he's saying don't you think, in your heart, that in this situation it's not a good idea for a man to wear his hair long? (Because I don't think that Paul, who knew about Nazarite vows and believed them to come from God since it's part of the OT law would say that long hair is a crime against nature in the sense we would think of it.) And it's good for a woman to dress and behave in socially appropriate ways too. And then that last verse is interesting. After he says to judge for themselves, but it seems logical to him to conform to socially customary modes of dress, he says that they shouldn't argue about it because contention is not part of the cultural customs of the church.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it. I know others view things differently, and I don't want to argue about it either. But I hope that these thoughts are helpful to you in deciding for yourself how you will interpret these kinds of verses. I'm sorry to take up so much time and space here, I just don't know how to say these things effectively in a briefer manner. Again, if this isn't helpful let me know and I won't continue. Otherwise, I'll take up some more verses tomorrow. :)

[mom4him]

***Disclaimer: I do NOT mean for this to be a debate. I am simply asking opinions and your own views. It is impossible to debate against someone's views, so please, do not.

 

I have lately been struggling with a lot of statements in the Bible pertaining to women.

 

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 

"A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7)

 

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7)

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14)

 

There are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

Is this just Paul's view, or did God show Paul these views and Paul transcribed them?

 

Doesn't it in the Bible say that scripture in the Bible is all coming from God? (Sorry, can't think of the specific verse.)

 

If that is so, and I am pretty sure there is a verse like that, then those views above are God's view? Or did Paul twist them? Or did he simply add his own views?

 

I just can't wrap my head around a few of them and am looking for how other women view/interpret them.

One of the things that I do when I need better understanding of a scripture is be sure to read several verses before and several verses after the one in question. I also look them up in different translations. By doing this I normally will find peace in the Word.

For instance the scripture that says spare the rod and spoil the child. It it really talking about hitting your child with a rod or is it talking about guiding and disciplining your child in the way that the individual child responds to best. I vote for the latter.:001_smile:

[Mama Geek]

I do believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. When I was younger I struggled with much of the same questions. You have been given a lot of good information by some of the previous posters. Maybe I can give some insight on putting this into practice.

 

One of the most important decisions you will make is choosing a spouse. This is not something to be taken lightly. The more his values, morals, beliefs, goals and dreams line up with yours the more likely you are to have a successful marriage. Yes, I do believe that it is also much easier when a husband and wife have Christ at the center of their marriage.

 

My dh is very intelligent, he is one of the best technical problem solvers I know. He is a faithful follower of Christ. He treats me very well and has great respect and love for me. Submitting to my dh doesn't mean that he forces me into submission or that I can't make decisions on my own. I run the household, plan meals, handle the majority of our finances, I will be doing most of the homeschooling, and I am sure many other things that I aren't coming to me at 5 am;).

 

We discuss all major decisions, which house to buy, which job to take, what church to attend, where to spend the holidays, if we should baptize our infant daughter, etc. I always get to contribute my opinion and he takes it very seriously. We both put a lot of prayer and thought into these decisions and we both contribute different but important insights into these decisions. Do I leave the final decision up to him? Yes. He always tries his best to make the decisions based on what God wants us to do and what is best for our family. Do I think he always makes the decision I would make? No, but I love and respect him and support him to the best of my ability.

 

And you know what happens? He brags about me to his friends and co-workers. He loves the fact that I am intelligent and can make him think, that I can teach him things, and that he can depend on me to do my best as a wife and a partner. He can call me up while away at work and say hey sweetie, they are sending me to Po Dunk, USA tomorrow, can you get me a flight, hotel and rental car? And after just a few questions to clarify times and such. I will call him back within an hour with all the information waiting for him in his e-mail.

 

The wives submitting to their husbands can and does work. The husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loves the church. I don't resent being submissive to my dh, I do it joyfully. I love him and serve him and put his needs before my own. He does the same for me.

 

It took us both a long time to get to this understanding. We are coming up on our 16th anniversary and our marriage is stronger than ever. We enjoy our lives together. We so often see our friends and family have major problems in their marriages. We often pray that they will eventually come to have as great of a marriage as we do. We are doing our best to follow God's teachings and that has lead us to where we are today.

[Mama Geek]

As far as how things are done in the church, I believe that only men that meet the requirements in the New Testament should be a pastor of a church.

 

Women can actively be involved in bible studies, Sunday school, running the business aspects of the church, singing in the choir, teaching Sunday School (although I have over the last couple of years come to the conclusion that it is better for a man to teach the male children from about the age of 10 on up.

 

This doesn't make women any less important. I think God has made men and women different and therefore the roles of men and women are different.

 

I hope my 2 posts help you to see biblical submission a little differently.

[ciyates]

***Disclaimer: I do NOT mean for this to be a debate. I am simply asking opinions and your own views. It is impossible to debate against someone's views, so please, do not.

 

I have lately been struggling with a lot of statements in the Bible pertaining to women.

 

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 

"A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7)

 

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7)

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14)

 

There are a few more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

Is this just Paul's view, or did God show Paul these views and Paul transcribed them?

 

Doesn't it in the Bible say that scripture in the Bible is all coming from God? (Sorry, can't think of the specific verse.)

 

If that is so, and I am pretty sure there is a verse like that, then those views above are God's view? Or did Paul twist them? Or did he simply add his own views?

 

I just can't wrap my head around a few of them and am looking for how other women view/interpret them.

 

You have received some amazing words of wisdom. While these passages maybe hard I encourage you not to let them become stumbling blocks. Be like Daniel and pray Morning, Noon and Night over them and the Lord will give you the peace you need. :grouphug:

[Heidi]

(...continuing...)

If you go back and read the creation story in Genesis you will see that after each stage of creation God looked at what he had made and said "it is good". BUT when he created Adam God looked at what he had made and said "it is NOT good" for man to be alone. God's creation of mankind was not complete and "good" until he had created Eve out of Adam's rib. So woman came from man (who came from the dust of the Earth). Woman was created to complete and "help" man. Man was not created to complete woman. Once both of them were created, THEN the creation of man was "good".

Ok...the first part of this verse I think means that because woman was made to complete and help man, the man ought to have that position of "power", or godly authority in the sense I have been describing so that he also is helping her, making it a mutually beneficial partnership. She has a God-given responsibility to help him, he has a God-given responsibility to help her. The bit about the angels I'm not sure about. Different versions of the Bible translate this different ways, and I'm not sure what to make of it. The NLT says because the angels are watching. The ESV has a footnote that says that "angels" means messengers and refers to people who are sent to watch them (which makes some level of sense in this context). The YNG just goes ahead and translates it as "messengers" instead of angels. Most versions just say "because of the angels" and leave it at that. So...I think I will too. :)

 

So, here Paul explains that the proper relationship between a Christian (in the Lord) man and his wife is reciprocal. Neither is without the other, they're both in it together. And he reinforces it by pointing out that just as Eve was made from Adam, so all men now come from women through birth.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul concludes by telling them they should judge for themselves whether it is approprite for women to pray with their heads uncovered. As far as "nature itself" here, looking at the Greek in a concordance, it's not necessarily referring to "nature" as we think of it, but more along the lines of "the nature of things", or one's innate sense of how things are. I think he's saying don't you think, in your heart, that in this situation it's not a good idea for a man to wear his hair long? (Because I don't think that Paul, who knew about Nazarite vows and believed them to come from God since it's part of the OT law would say that long hair is a crime against nature in the sense we would think of it.) And it's good for a woman to dress and behave in socially appropriate ways too. And then that last verse is interesting. After he says to judge for themselves, but it seems logical to him to conform to socially customary modes of dress, he says that they shouldn't argue about it because contention is not part of the cultural customs of the church.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it. I know others view things differently, and I don't want to argue about it either. But I hope that these thoughts are helpful to you in deciding for yourself how you will interpret these kinds of verses. I'm sorry to take up so much time and space here, I just don't know how to say these things effectively in a briefer manner. Again, if this isn't helpful let me know and I won't continue. Otherwise, I'll take up some more verses tomorrow. :)

 

You are amazing, Mamasheep. I always look forward to reading your thoughts because you teach me so much. Thank you!

[Hunter's Moon]

Thank you everyone for your opinions, interpretations, and thoughts.

 

Mamasheep, I would really appreciate if you would go on. Your posts make sense and I really love reading them.

 

Thank you everyone, I really appreciate the help.

 

ETA: I'm also glad this thread wasn't controversial or anything. I was really debating posting this thread, but I'm really glad I did.

Edited November 29, 2010 by BeatleMania

[MamaSheep]

You are amazing, Mamasheep. I always look forward to reading your thoughts because you teach me so much. Thank you!

:blushing:

 

Thank you everyone for your opinions, interpretations, and thoughts.

 

Mamasheep, I would really appreciate if you would go on. Your posts make sense and I really love reading them.

 

Thank you everyone, I really appreciate the help.

 

ETA: I'm also glad this thread wasn't controversial or anything. I was really debating posting this thread, but I'm really glad I did.

 

I'm really glad you said that because when I went to bed last night I was thinking I'd gone way overboard and you'd think I was trying to butt in and take over the conversation. And then I was thinking also that there was another verse or two I should maybe have pulled out to help with that 11:7 verse...but that would have made it even looonger. Lol. So thanks for the encouragement and for your patience with my longwindedness. :)

 

I probably won't have time to type much for a while today, there are some things I need to get caught up on. But quickly, just for fun, one other verse I thought maybe I should have discussed a smidge was Genesis 1:27.

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

To me, this verse shows that both man and woman are created in God's image. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word translated as "man" here is 'adam', which can be a singular sort of word meaning one male man person, but which is more commonly used in the Bible to indicate a more inclusive, broad meaning along the lines of "mankind" or "people". The word translated as "male" means a man person. So I understand this verse to mean that God created mankind, both male and female, in the divine image.

 

Also, there's the first two verses of Genesis 5:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

 

 

God created male and female and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam. You see, again it's the collective meaning of adam, rather than (or in addition to) the singular name.

 

Adam was the father of all mankind and represented us all in the garden, and his name reflects that, just as the first woman was named Eve because she was the mother of all living:

20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

The Hebrew concordance reference(s) related to "Eve" are deeply intriguing to me. The entry under "Eve" says:

 

Transliteration: Chavvah

Pronunciation: khav·vä'

Part of Speech: Proper feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology): something I can't type because it's in Hebrew letters, but it's Strong's number H2331, and I'll come back to it momentarily.

Outline of Biblical usage:

Eve = "life" or "living"

1) the first woman, wife of Adam

 

So then looking up H2331, the root word for "Eve" we find this entry:

 

Transliteration: chavah

Pronunciation: khä·vah'

Part of Speech: verb

Root Word (Etymology): a primitive root

Outline of Biblical usage:

1) (Piel) to tell, declare, show, make known

2) (CLBL) to breathe

 

Ok, so I find it fascinating that she was named "Eve" because she is the mother of all living, and her name means "living", or life, and has roots in a verb that means both "to breathe" and "to tell, declare, show, make known".

Many people tend to look at Eve as the person who brought death into the world, not life. Yet she is honored by Adam (and by God) with a name that means "life", and also includes nuances of recognition of her role as the person who chose to know good from evil, and who made it possible for others to know as well.

Anyway, I find it intriguing.

Edited November 29, 2010 by MamaSheep

[asta]

Ok, so I find it fascinating that she was named "Eve" because she is the mother of all living, and her name means "living", or life, and has roots in a verb that means both "to breathe" and "to tell, declare, show, make known".

Many people tend to look at Eve as the person who brought death into the world, not life. Yet she is honored by Adam (and by God) with a name that means "life", and also includes nuances of recognition of her role as the person who chose to know good from evil, and who made it possible for others to know as well.

Anyway, I find it intriguing.

 

I think it makes complete sense: the written copies that were handed down were not handed down by a matriarchal system, they were handed down by a patriarchal one. It is easy to see where the connection could be lost.

 

 

a

[Ester Maria]

Well, not my religious tradition, but I personally love Agrippa's stance on women. :D

[Caitilin]

Well, not my religious tradition, but I personally love Agrippa's stance on women. :D

 

 

EM, once again, I :001_wub: you. :D

[MamaSheep]

I think it makes complete sense: the written copies that were handed down were not handed down by a matriarchal system, they were handed down by a patriarchal one. It is easy to see where the connection could be lost.

 

 

a

 

Very much in line with what my church teaches on the subject, though, which is one reason I find it so fascinating.

[MamaSheep]

Well, I'm back. And I've been mulling over these verses. I pulled out a reference from my shelf tonight for a little more input, and wanted to just share something from the part on 1 Corinthians 11:16, where Paul says, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." I had commented earlier that I thought Paul was saying that contention is not a custom in the churches of God. I was basing that interpretation largely on the fact that several times in this letter Paul criticizes the divisions and arguments that are happening in the church in Corinth, and I was reading this as another instance of that. This author (David J. Ridges) offers a slightly different take, in which he suggests that Paul is saying that if anyone gets upset about what he just said about hair length and head coverings, they should be reminded that this is a local issue they're dealing with, and not a dictate by the apostles and other leaders of the church as a whole ("we have no such custom"), nor is it a universal policy throughout the church ("neither the churches of God"). This interpretation makes sense to me too. Maybe more than the one I offered earlier. Anyway, just food for thought, and I thought I'd share.

 

Moving on, then, to the verses of concern in chapter 14 of the same letter. I think it's helpful to get some context from the chapters leading up to the verses in question. After Paul's discussion of showing respect for each other and for God through their dress and grooming during worship (prayer and prophesying), Paul enters into a discussion about proper procedures and attitudes regarding the sacrament of the Lord's supper in their church meetings. Evidently, they had turned it into a meal, in which some people selfishly overindulged while others went hungry, and it had become a source of division amongst the church members. Paul tells them that's not right, and then recounts to them how the sacrament was instituted, and what it was intended to mean. He tells them that their misunderstanding of this practice has caused spiritual weakness, sickness and death, and that they should take it more seriously. If they're hungry they should eat at home, and come to the meeting in the proper frame of mind for contemplation and worship. Chapter 12 begins with a discussion of spiritual gifts, about which Paul evidently feels the Corinthian saints need more instruction. He explains what some of them are, and then he explains that although each individual might have a different gift, all such gifts are for the benefit of the church as a whole, just as the different parts of the human body each benefit the body as a whole. They should not pridefully compare their spiritual gifts to those of others and look down on people with gifts they feel are somehow "lesser" because the church has need of every gift, and every person, each being made useful in an appropriate manner. He again cautions them about divisions (actually this is a very recurring theme in 1 Corinthians, starting way back in chapter 1 shortly after his greeting to them. It might be interesting sometime to go through and mark all the places he tells them to quit being divisive.) And now that Paul has given them what for about sticking their noses in the air and putting each other down, he tells them to seek the best gifts and then launches into a discussion in chapter 13 as to why charity (love and consideration toward others) is the best of the gifts.

 

That brings us to chapter 14 (which contains one of the verses you asked about), in which Paul continues his discussion of the proper use of, and attitude toward, spiritual gifts. Paul starts chapter 14 by saying (in verse 1), "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy." I read this to mean that he's telling them charity is wonderful, and so are spiritual gifts, and they should seek for these wonderful things, BUT, even more so they should seek the ability to prophesy. Now, I do think it's important in reading this chapter to understand what is meant by the word "prophesy". The word can have several meanings, but in scripture it indicates that a person is speaking the word of God, by inspiration of God (in other words, under the influence of the Holy Spirit). This can mean "foretelling" the future as God reveals to the person, and it can also mean simply teaching the word of God as the Spirit guides. Strong's tells us that among other things it means, "to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation" (such as future events, but also such as the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God--there's not a scientific blood test for that, you can only truly "know" that by revelation from God). Also, it says, "...to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others".

 

Paul then talks about why it's better to prophesy (teach the word of God clearly and effectively under the guidance of the Spirit) than it is to speak in tongues. It seems as though some church members in Corinth viewed speaking in tongues as a "big" gift to be proud of and to show off. Paul explains that the gift of tongues is indeed something good, and that this gift is useful to the church "body" when someone is there who can understand the language being spoken (an example that comes to my mind, though Paul doesn't explicitly point it out, would be at Pentecost when people heard the gospel preached in their own native languages). But if there's no one who understands the language, it's only useful to the person speaking and does not serve to build up or instruct (edify) the church. And he's just given a whole lecture on how spiritual gifts are intended to benefit the whole "body" of the church, not just one individual person. So, he says, it's better to prophesy. For one thing, he points out in verse 23 that if everyone in the church meeting spoke in different languages, and people came in who were new to the faith, or who were outsiders, they would think they were all crazy. (And remember, this follows portions of the letter that deal with not eating, dressing, or wearing one's hair in such a way that it will give a bad impression in the community.) But if they are preaching the gospel clearly (prophesying) people who come in will understand, and will be benefitted.

 

In verse 26 Paul says, "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." In other words, everyone has something to contribute, but it should all be done in a manner that will strengthen, instruct, and build up the church. Not in confusion and chaos.

 

Verse 27 says, "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." Instead of everyone speaking in foreign tongues all at once so that nobody can understand or learn anything, pick two or maybe three and have them take turns (by course means taking turns, one at a time), and make sure someone there can interpret what they are saying--because what they are saying is the important part, not that they are saying it in a different language. Which is why verse 28 says, "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." Notice the phrase there, "keep silence"? Sound familiar? Verse 29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." Those not having a turn speaking should "judge", or listen attentively and compare in their minds what is said with the accepted word of God. In other words, listen quietly to the person whose turn it is to speak and think about what is being said.

 

(continued...yes, I'm being longwinded again, but I really think the context is vital to understanding here...)

Edited November 30, 2010 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

(...continuing)

Verse 30, "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." If someone who is listening is led by the Spirit to speak, wait until the first person finishes what they were saying and is ready to be quiet and listen in turn. Note that the Greek word translated here as "hold his peace" is the same as the one translated as "keep silence" in verses 28 and 34. Verse 31, "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." Everyone can have a turn (note that it says "all", not "all the men") and all can benefit. Verse 32, "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." The prophets have self-control, and can wait their turn, God doesn't compel them to burst out and interrupt. Verse 33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." God's way in all the gatherings of Christians is one of order and peace, not of chaos and confusion. The chaos in the meetings in Corinth is not of God, because God is orderly and so are God's churches.

 

Which brings us to the verses you asked about in this chapter:

 

"34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

 

So let's look at these thoughts in context. Yesterday we established that Paul had no problem with the women praying and prophesying, so long as they did so in a reverent, appropriate manner that would not reflect badly on their husbands or Christ. And mere sentences ago, in verse 31, we were told that all may prophesy. And furthermore, that all may learn and be comforted. So after telling us that all may teach and all may learn, why do these verses seem to contradict that and tell us that women may not teach OR learn at church? My opinion is that it's not a contradiction of what Paul just said, but rather a continuation. He is saying that all of this applies to the women just as much as it applies to the men. Women are under the same obligation as the men to "keep silent" and "hold their peace" and listen and "judge" while others speak, and not to interrupt. Being women does not give them special permission to speak while others are speaking. They are to be obedient (this is the same Greek word, btw, that is used in those verses from yesterday about "submitting" and also refers to the same kind of voluntary cooperation) to the same procedures as the men, which is customary and appropriate (the law) in the church. And if they have any questions about that (or if they have a problem with it), they should discuss it with their husbands (their heads, under Christ, who have a responsibility toward them to make sure that they have the understanding and information they need) at home because it's not appropriate for them to be interrupting the meetings.

 

Paul then says that the word of God neither originated with the church in Corinth, nor did God speak only to them and not to anyone else. I take this to mean he is pointing out that they are part of Christ's larger Church, not a law unto themselves, and they should do things the way they are done in other churches, in an orderly, informative manner, not just make up their own chaotic way of doing things. He's saying this doesn't just apply to the men, it applies to the women. And it doesn't just apply to the men and women here in this church, it applies to the whole, broad, inclusive Church. And he then says that anyone who thinks he's a prophet or spiritual will acknowledge this. And let anyone who has been mistaken admit their mistake. And finishes up with another encouragement to earnestly seek the ability to prophesy, and not to go overboard (as these people seem to have a tendency to do) and forbid the speaking of tongues (which is, after all, another one of the gifts of the Spirit and under the right circumstances serves to build up the church too), but to do all things (including prophecy and speaking of tongues) in an orderly and appropriate manner. And then he goes on to explain (preach, prophesy) the gospel in the next bit, possibly as an example of what he's talking about.

 

And that is my take on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in context. And again, I do understand that other people view these verses very differently, and I don't want to offend anyone, or argue over the interpretation, I am merely offering my point of view for consideration because the OP requested different points of view. And Stephanie, once again I hope this is helpful to you in some way. :)

Edited November 30, 2010 by MamaSheep

[asta]

Two things. One, I remember getting in a spat at one point on these boards with a woman who said that they (her congregation/parish/whatever) spoke in tongues "every Sunday" because "they were just FULL of the Holy Spirit". Erm. That one stuck in my craw, but I digress.

 

The other one actually comes from DS, and I found it insightful: he commented that he didn't think that Paul thought anyone would be reading his mail either; that he (Paul) believed the Corinthians would do what he and the other apostles were doing - take the information, go out and continue to build the Church. After all, that is how the Church was built; from Jesus to the apostles to the people. The Christian "bible" wasn't compiled as a "field guide" (for lack of a better term) until the 4th century.

 

If you (global you) look at the situation in that manner, it kind of turns what he is saying a bit on its head and gives much credence to what mama sheep is saying; that Paul's letters to the Corinthians were instructions to a particular population, in a particular time. They were the "how" of building the Church (big C, not little c). That Church was built, and has continually evolved to meet the needs of particular populations at particular times. It hasn't moved quickly or rashly, but it has moved.

 

 

a

[Joanne]

The question is how do *I* interpret scripture.

 

I have abandoned the typical Christian approach to scripture.

 

I have long found Paul to be arrogant, mysogynist and chauvenistic.

 

Issues such as those represented in this thread are very much what has lead me away from Christians/Christianity.

 

I do believe that the Christian bible is God *inspired*. I also believe it was the written record of many years of oral tradition (remember the telephone game as kids when the original bears little relationship to the final?). It was written by human hands who were steeped in a culture and time that were patriarchial, homophobic and unhealthfully religiously exclusive.

 

I believe that the Bible is "true", but not literal. It was written in a time when stories, parables, epics, poetry and literary techniques intended to create drama, hyperbole and interest.

 

The issues of moving any major work out of the original language can never fully be overcome; nuance is changed and richness stripped.

 

I believe in God; I respect the Bible.

[Pam Wilhelm]

I rely on Gen. 1

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 

Each one of us incorporates masculine and feminine qualities..... and both are good.

 

Of course, I am a Christian Scientist......... a religion founded by a woman. :D

[Kari C in SC]

I don't think Paul expected anyone to be reading his mail 2000 years later.

 

 

a

 

:lol: This gave me a giggle! Thanks for the smile this morning!

Edited November 30, 2010 by Kari C in SC

[Garga]

I used to say that I took the bible literally. But that's not really true. There is a lot of metaphor, etc, in the bible.

 

So, now I say that I take it seriously.

 

Whenever possible, I'll believe it literally, but when it starts to break down and not make any sense to take it literally, then I start to search deeper for the meanings of the words, the culture of the time, the context.

 

Treating women like second class citizens doesn't make any sense and doesn't seem to jive with all the other scriptures of how much God loves us. So, that's when I start to delve into deeper meanings and context.

[Paige]

I believe those verses are a reflection of their times and cannot be taken out of context. I also believe the translations are a reflection of their times and cannot be taken out of context. Add onto to that, the influence of historical assumptions and interpretations on new translations. I don't know much Greek but I have seen how one Greek word can mean many things in English. The first English translations were done in a very patriarchal time period, and the first translation becomes ingrained in people's mind and it would be very difficult for a new translation to gain acceptance that wrote the verse as women should speak softly rather than women should remain quiet, kwim? Regardless of it the translations are right or wrong, I have to look at the totality of scripture. I believe throughout the Bible God has used women. He had a woman as a Judge! Surely, if women were to remain quiet and had no business being in a position of poewer, then there would be no women Judges. Also, the Bible speaks of women in the New Testament who were prominent in the church.

 

Additionally, I think Christians may get tripped up by "the curse." IMO, the curse was a pronouncement of what would happen, but not what should happen. Women would desire men. Men would rule over them. But that is sinful and not what He wanted. Just like the earth is covered in weeds- that's the way things are, as a result of sin, but not what God's desire for the land is. So, IMO, throughout history women have been tempted to put men before God. To desire male affection and attention more than that of God. Men, on the other hand, have a weakness in they (as a group) have failed because they tend to desire to rule over women and to force submission. If you look at it that way, it is easy to see (for me anyway) how those scriptures can be misinterpreted to reinforce the biggest weaknesses within women and men because our inclination is to move towards that sort of dysfunctional power relationship.

[MamaSheep]

I think I'll take on 1 Timothy next. You asked about verses 12-14 in chapter 2, but as I'm sure you have noticed by now, I find it helpful to back up and get a bit of a running start so that we can look at verses like this as part of the big picture, rather than in isolation. So I'm going to start at the beginning of the chapter.

 

First of all, Paul has just finished telling Timothy that Paul has confidence in Timothy to be able to straighten out some problems that have cropped up in the church at Ephesus. Now Paul is going to give advice as to how to go about doing that. Which is pretty much where chapter 2 picks up.

 

Paul says, begin with prayer. (Always good advice, IMO)

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

It's kind of easy to pass over these verses without much thought, as there doesn't seem to be much of interest to our discussion in them. In English. But there are a couple of things about the Greek that I would like to gently point out.

 

First, the word at the end of verse one that is translated as "man" in English is "anthrōpos". It is a masculine noun, but it is generic in meaning, and means human beings, people, not specifically male people.

 

Secondly, the word in the second verse translated as "kings" in English is "basileus", which (according to Strong's) is a masculine noun, and means, "leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king." So here we have authority in a masculine context.

 

Thirdly, the part translated as "authority" in "all that are in authority" uses the Greek word, "hyperochē", which is a feminine noun, and means "elevation, pre-eminence, superiority". And now we have authority in a feminine sense.

 

And then in verse 4, "man" is back to being "anthropos" again. I point this out because this is a subtle pattern that I think is relevant in interpreting the next little bit of this letter. Paul addresses people, generically and jointly, and then addresses the masculine element, and then the feminine element and then returns to the joint, inclusive totality of the two. It's like an ABBA rhyme scheme, but with a repetition of concept rather than of sound.

 

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

 

The "For" at the beginning of this verse is a connector. It indicates a connection between what Paul just said, and what is coming next, and that he is about to expand on what he just said. Paul is about to repeat the pattern he established above--inclusive generic, masculine, feminine, inclusive generic. Second stanza, so to speak.

 

"Men" in this verse is the generic "humankind" anthropos, and Jesus's ransom arrangement was on behalf of "all". Inclusively.

 

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

 

"Preacher" here is "kēryx", and means, "a herald or messenger vested with public authority, who conveyed the official messages of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who gave a public summons or demand, and performed various other duties". And apostle also means a delegate or messenger. Paul acts as an ambassador of Christ, vested with public authority as an apostle, and as such he speaks to everyone--"anthropos". The first inclusive generic element.

 

Having established that, he moves on to the masculine element in verse 8.

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

 

In this verse "men" is the Greek word "anēr", which can be a generic term for a group of people, but more generally is used to refer specifically to male persons. Paul desires that the men pray in all places, and gives two specifications as to how it's to be done--first, they should lift up holy hands, and second, they should do so without wrath and doubting. Again, it's useful to look at the Greek here, and also to take into account the first few words of verse 9, "In like manner also". What Paul is saying in this verse to the men is to be viewed "in like manner", or as a parallel to what Paul is about to say to the women in the next part.

 

So men are to "lift up", or display (or metaphorically take pride in, according to Strong's), "holy hands". What does this mean, "holy hands"? Because this is a parallel to what he's going to say to the women, I don't think he just means that they should wave their hands around in the air in a way that somehow indicates their appreciation for God--their hands aren't supposed to be showing that God is holy, but they are supposed to BE "holy hands". So what does that mean? The word translated as "holy" is "hosios", and means "undefiled by sin, free from wickedness, religiously observing every moral obligation, pure holy, pious". "Hands" is "cheir" and refers to activity, power, action as represented by the hands. I think what Paul is referring to here is something along the lines of the idea presented in Psalm 24:

Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

I think Paul is saying that in approaching God in prayer it is appropriate for the men to do so with "clean hands", or "holy hands", or hands that have been put to use in moral ways, undefiled by sin, have religiously observed their moral obligations--which have, in short, been engaged in "good works".

 

And they are also to be free of wrath (the Greek of which can refer to anger, or to any violently emotional state, or punishment inflicted by magistrates) and doubting (questioning what is true, disputing, arguing) . Approach God with clean hands, and a pure heart.

 

(continued...again...heh..)

[MamaSheep]

(continuing)

 

And now for the feminine part of the parallel masculine/feminine couplet.

 

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

 

"In like manner also" establishes that Paul is saying the same thing to the women as he just said to the men. Women shouldn't approach prayer as a place to display, or "lift up", their fine clothing, fancy hairdo, and sparkly jewelry where everyone can see and appreciate their beauty, but should stay focused on the purpose of prayer and approach it reverently and soberly ("shamefacedness" doesn't mean women should be ashamed, it just means that they should behave in a respectful, humble, modest manner--as everyone should toward God). And instead, they should "lift up" their good works--in the same way (in like manner) that the men will be lifting up their "holy hands", or good works. It's a parallel. But that's only the parallel of the "holy hands" part; next comes the parallel of the "without wrath and doubting" part, though in my opinion the two are reversed, addressing doubt first and then wrath.

 

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

 

Let's look at verse 11 more closely. Remember back in 1 Corinthians where the word translated as "silence" (sigaō) meant that a woman should be quiet, hold her peace, and listen? This is not that word. This is a whole other word being also translated as "silence" in English. This verse uses the word, "hēsychia", with a slightly different meaning than we saw in 1 Corinthians. It does mean "quietness", but in a sense that it is a "description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others". The word that is translated as "learn" can indeed mean to become informed about something, as we would think of it, but it includes undertones of learning something by practice or use, and making it habitual. And "subjection" means "obedience", but I see no reason to think it means obedience to men here. Rather I think it means obedience to God, or faithfulness in Christian living. So to me, verse 11 is saying that in worship women should learn to habitually focus on their own work, their own affairs, and not meddle in other people's work or affairs, and they should be faithful and obedient to God. They shouldn't engage in disputing or arguing with others, or in questioning God's will--which is parallel to the "doubting" that the men are supposed to avoid.

 

Now verse 12. First, remember that the women have just been told they should mind their own affairs and not meddle with other people's business. In this context, I think Paul is telling the women they should not try to instruct (teach) a man as to how to do his work in the church, but should focus on their own work and area of responsibility. The "nor to usurp authority" bit is interesting too. Some translations just render it as to "have authority". But looking at the Greek I think it's a bit stronger than just "having" it. Strongs says this word means:

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

3) an absolute master

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

I'm thinking the KJV people were on to something with their "usurp". This sounds to me like a dominating, bullying kind of authority, not just "having" authority, or being placed in a position of authority, but shoving one's nose in and taking over on one's own authority, not the proper chain of authority, if you see what I mean. None of those definitions seem to be in line with what we have learned that Jesus said about the function of "authority" among His people. In my opinion, Paul is saying that he does not allow women to tell men how to do their jobs, or to just butt in and take over, but to be in "silence"--and this is the minding their own business silence, not the zipping their lip silence. If we understand it that way, then this is the parallel for the "wrath" that the men are supposed to be avoiding and completes the couplet nicely.

The next three verses bring the discussion, conceptually speaking, back to the "inclusive generic", but I am out of time for now and will have to come back and finish up that part of this chapter later. Sorry!

Edited December 1, 2010 by MamaSheep

[justamouse]

I don't think Paul expected anyone to be reading his mail 2000 years later.

 

 

a

 

I am bursting with love for you.

 

Let your women keep silence.... This is a mistranslation. The Greek word used in the original means to speak quietly, not to be silent. The explanation given by some scholars is that women were not used to the new freedom they had in the church, and they were shouting out and being disruptive; thus, Paul's directive to tone it down.

 

I think many of Jesus' and Paul's words seem archaic in our time, but they were radical in their time and culture. Within the context of each controversial passage, we have to ask ourselves whether the exact mandate is to be followed in our current culture, or is there an example of progressivism that should be followed instead.

 

I do believe that the entire Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I also believe we have to look at context (historical, cultural, within the Scriptures, original languages) to understand the Bible correctly.

 

Paul is a total misogynist--BUT in that time he was progressive and a revolutionary (howz that for ya?). The context of those verses have to be read in the history of the time. Roman women were taking off their veils which at the time were a sign of marriage like the modern day wedding ring. They were being loud (Roman women) and flaunting their affairs. He was asking them that they keep their rings on and stay faithful to their husbands. The Roman women were being loud and boisterous, disrupting meetings, he was asking Christian women to be meek mannered and be orderly.

 

His admonishments weren't for today's woman--he *was* progressive back then (which is why the modesty threads sometimes crack me up-because if the bible said put rings in your noses and walk twenty steps behind your husband while he holds the chain to your nose, some Christians would swear that following such rules were the only way to be real Christians). What we should be asking is if he WAS progressive and we now see him as a misogynist, what would he advocate today? And how does Christ view women? How did he treat them? They were Pastors, they were leaders back then. They took care of the ministry, they were more his disciples than some of his disciples BUT the patriarchy that wrote the stories didn't talk much about the women.

 

Those in power get to write history as they want it to be.

 

 

An excellent book on these scriptures is

 

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Paul-Women-Jon-Zens/dp/0976522292

 

What's With Paul and Women?

Product Description

 

1 Timothy 2:11-12 has been used as a "clear" mandate to silence women in the church for over 1500 years. In What's With Paul & Women? Jon Zens exposes the fallacies of this interpretation, and opens up the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 using insights gleaned from the Artemis-saturated Ephesian culture where Timothy was left to stand against false teaching (1:3). Going beyond 1 Timothy 2, this book covers the major issues in gender inequality with three Appendices: one on the Ephesian social world in which 1 Timothy was written, another on 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and an extensive review of John Piper's What's the Difference? Manhood & Womanhood Defined According to the Bible. If 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 have puzzled you, What's With Paul & Women? will help in your quest to discern the mind of the Lord as the gender debate continues.

Paul's instructions to women in I Corinthians are very difficult to sort out. It seems that we are missing a piece (or pieces) of the puzzle that would have been understood in the community to which he wrote it. Additionally, we have to use other Scripture to understand Scripture that seems more obscure. For instance, Paul also wrote in Galatians that "In Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman." In the very same passage, Paul says that a woman who prays or prophecies should wear a head covering. Prophesying was definitely a gift to the broader church (See I Cor 12-14) so it seems that Paul is allowing for some speaking by women in church in this very passage.

 

Faithful churches may differ in the way they interpret women speaking/teaching in church/headcoverings because it is difficult to say what if any specific local problems (not quite as local as Timothy's tummy, but local nonetheless) that Paul may have been addressing that were not applied across the board even in that culture. Furthermore, the NT itself indicates that some things adjust for culture. For instance, Paul says he became as a Jew to win Jews and as a Greek to win Greeks. So there may be broader applications of the gospel to that culture that may not continue to apply.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

Verses like these are a huge stumbling block for me. I was raised in a very conservative, fundamentalist family. But I can no longer stomach being a second class citizen in my religion. I'm questioning all the beliefs I was raised with. It's a very uncomfortable place to be in. :)

 

:grouphug::grouphug: BTDT. This is me, 8 years after leaving all of that behind and wrestling with who I was raised to believe God is, who I believe God is and who God shows me he is. It's a journey, it involves forgiveness and it take a long time to unlearn that stuff. Even still I have to stop and think whose glasses I have on when I encounter an old train of thought.

 

Well, not my religious tradition, but I personally love Agrippa's stance on women. :D

 

Awesome.

 

 

The food verses-I said something about them on a Halloween thread. Basically it boils down to that if YOU believe it, it gives the thing power. To the person who believes it is wrong to eat idolatrous meats, then to them it is wrong because they believe that-it doesn't mean that it actually IS wrong. What we believe we give power to.

 

And I do NOT believe in Sola Scriptura. Too much manipulation can be placed at the feet of that belief.

Edited December 1, 2010 by justamouse