Religion - (Christianity) Please Help...!

Women have always played a key role in God's purpose. For example, the Psalmist was inspired to write:

(Psalm 68:11) . . .The women telling the good news are a large army.

There are other examples of them being used by God as prophets. But the reference I think you are referring to is found in 1 Corinthians where it says:

(1 Corinthians 14:33-35) . . .As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. 35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation. . .

As the Bible is of divine origin we understand that what the apostle wrote here was not of his own thinking but what he was directed to write by God through holy spirit. What are you thoughts on this text?

I think the text speaks for itself.

That's impossible. Inanimate objects don't interpret themselves.

I think it is important to note that this does not mean that a Christian woman must never speak during a congregation meeting? In the apostle Paul’s day, there were occasions when Christian women, perhaps impelled by holy spirit, prayed or prophesied in the congregation. On such occasions, they acknowledged their position by wearing a head covering. (1 Corinthians 11:5) Further, in Paul’s day and today, sisters along with brothers are urged to make a public declaration of their hope. (Hebrews 10:23-25) Women declare their hope and encourage others during congregation meetings by giving well-thought-out comments when invited to do so. Many who have visited the meetings held by Jehovah's Witnesses have found this to be the example they follow.

I think you know what I mean. That in many instances the texts from different books of the Bible help to make clear the meaning of other texts. For example, a text in the Old Testement may be expounded on and explained in the New Testement. Thus the Bible contains the answers to questions proposed in it.

The bible is a human written text translated and interpreted hundreds of times over thousands of years. I think it is highly unlikely that the original intent of the document still remains. All that is left now are the wishes of many interpreters.

Do you pray when you are wearing a hat?

The Bible is a collection of Early Bronze Age myths, but as long as those gullible enough to believe the miracle stories and fantasies of scientifically illiterate goat-herders are peaceful, I don't feel much motivated to bother them about it. Most people are superstitious or have fallacious beliefs about something or other. I'm sure I do, and when I find them, I get rid of them.

Sorry I'm late in responding. But no I don't wear a hat when praying.

Thank you for your question. At fifteen, you are just beginning to discover yourself, and your place in the universe.

IMO, it is very important for a young person to keep his ears open, and his mind in gear. At this point in time, you have only had the opportunity to discover only a small sliver of the beliefs to which we humans ascribe. There is a lot more out there, and it is a world rich in possible experiences.

In the meantime, just enjoy, and allow new learning to help you find the place in the world that is most comfortable, and makes the most sense to you.

Here is the point Anthony. You didn't learn the Bible on your own. You learned it from your church. You probably have taken your own time to study it on your own, but everyone starts learning in a church. You talked with friends in the same Church. You heard sermons from leaders you trust. You probably took Bible studies.

Once you learn the Bible from a particular Church in a particular denomination, it is very difficult to change your opinion. Everyone in your church has pretty much the same ideas, the same way of understanding and the same perspective.

There are two interesting questions here.

Let's say a person with zero involvement with or knowledge of any church sits down and reads the Bible. And, let's say this person on his own tries earnestly to understand and follow, what Church would this person be closest too? Of course there is a problem with this question.

The time and culture you grew up in also affect your thinking. I suspect that you believe that human slavery is a barbaric evil, at least most of us Modern humans believe that. Yet the Bible clearly accepts slavery to the point of telling slaves that they shouldn't run away. Just 150 years ago Christians in the US saw Harriet Tubman (one of my personal heroes) as a evil sinner who was going against the will of God.

I grew up in a Church so I have the same problem that you do thinking independently about the Bible. But I imagine this person wouldn't let women talk in Church. This person wouldn't pray while wearing a hat or have long hair. This person would be very generous to poor people and would never defend himself in a fight. This person may have more than one wife (or could decide to have zero wives).

Here is another question. If we had a time machine and took an early Christian (from say 325AD which is an important year for the type if Christianity that you now follow), but let's say we took this early Christian and transported them to modern day? Which Church would they choose.

The really interesting thing about my first question is that the time you were born really affects your perspective on the Bible.

Humans interpret the Bible. The way that you interpret the Bible has everything to do with the Church you learned from, and the time and culture you are part of. This is the reason that sincere intelligent people read the same Bible and have such vastly different ideas about how to follow it.

And let's take this a little further. Suppose a person was born into a culture where another book was the cornerstone of a peoples' beliefs. Or, perhaps, it is a culture where there is no book at all, but some other way of the people attempting to make sense of the universe.

What do you think would happen if those folks were exposed to the bible? What interpretations do you think that they would make?

Maxdancona,

I agree with your point that I didn't learn the Bible on my own. And yes, I did take time to study it through a Bible study. This no doubt does serve to structure ones thinking and focus it in a particular direction. But that is true of any instruction one receives either religious or secular.

To answer your first question, if a person who had zero involvement or knowlege of the Bible, engaged in a study of it on his own and really tried to apply what he learned from it, he would hope to align himself with a church that through its teachings and practices, seeks to live by the timeless and universal standards outlined in the Bible as did the first or early Christians.

This helps to answer your second question. If a church of today strives to live by the timeless principles and standards as outlined in God's Word, then when doing a comparison between the type of Christianity practiced today as a opposed the type of Christianity practiced by the early Christians, one would and should see little if any differenc when it comes to teachings and standards of conduct.

Really, God himself makes it clear that no matter what the time frame, the moral principles, standards and teaches would not change to fit human opinon as time progressed. As he himself states in the Bible book of Malachi, chapter 3 and verse 6 : "For I am Jehovah, I have not changed."

And finally, a person's view of the Bible is indeed affected by the church they belong to. But that's also true of our upbringing by parents or others when it comes to our view of life. Especailly in the case of our parents do we often in our later year sometimes try to interpret of give meaning to some of the actions they took in rasing us. Many churches apply this approach to the Bible. But that's the mistake they make. That's one of the main reasons why there are so many different, confusing and conflicting teachings. Instead of viewing the Bible as the actual Word of God and letting is be the final authority on certain matters, many people lower its postion of authority and thus try to tweak what it says to fit their on views.

Take for example what is stated at 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verses 9 and 10. Many take exception to what God's Word says here about certain forms of conduct. So what do many do? They put a spin on things in an effort to water down or alter, interpret, what the text clearly says in favor of what they feel it should say.

We don't take that view. We feel that the Bible is the final authority on matters. Thus we endeavor to align our teachings and forms of conduct to what Jesus early followers practiced and believed.

This is the whole point I am trying to make (and you said it better than I did). Of course the problem is that in reality this hasn't happened.

Consider the difference when it comes to teachings and standards of conduct between predominantly White churches and predominantly Black churches in the US. How do you explain that?

Can you give me and example?

Sure Anthony, I will give you several (and there are many more)

- Should a Christian keep a gun in his house for self-defense and to protect his family?
- It is important for a Christian to be patriotic?
- Is the United States more special to God than any other country?
- Should a Christian shelter and aid illegal immigrants, or turn them in for deportation?
- Is jailing young adults who use drugs a good thing, or a bad thing?
- Should we take money from wealthy people to help people in poverty?

The Bible is used to support contradictory answers to all of these questions. Give me your answers, and I will tell you the skin color of most of the people you go to church with.

Wow!! Okay let's see. How about let's narrow it down? Let's deal with the question: Is the United States more special to God than any other country?

To start we can consider a statement made by one of the apostles in the book of Acts, chapter 10 and verses 34 and 35 where he states: "For a certanty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him (seeks not to hurt him at heart) and works righteousness is acceptable to him"

This is an important statement. It dealt with an issue that existed at the time and in many ways still exists but now involves more than just the Jewish people. For many centuries the Jews had experienced a very special relationship with God as his chosen people. But in fullfillment of a promise God made to Abraham at Genesis chapter 22 verse 18, this relationship was to be expanded to include not only the Jews but all the nations.

For a time this caused considerable problems in the Christian congregation as some did not at first want to bring their thinking in line with what God had stated. Thus some Jews at first ignored what God stated and for a time promoted the idea that only they would continue to have this special relationship and that it would not be expaned to include all nations like God had stated.

Thus, by having the apostle Peter make this statement God was making it clear that he favored no nation over another. But that all could hold an equal standing with him if they were obedient. That same principle is in force today. God has not changed his stance. Thus, any church or individual Christian that professes to have a relationship with God must agree with his view that people coming out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues will be blessed as Revelation chapter 7 and verse 9 reveal.

Ok, so you answered that no, the US is not more special to God than any other country.

The other answers can be much shorter. Remember the point is that how you interpret the Bible to answer these questions is indicative of the skin color of the people you go to church with. I really just need a quick answers to determine that.

Maxdancona,
I have a question. Does the answer I just gave sound like I was interpreting the Scripture? Or rather just letting the text speak for itself?

Yes, the answer you just gave definitely sounded like you were interpreting the Scripture.

This is because you were interpreting the Scripture. Letting the text speak for itself means just posting the text. When you use your own words to explain a text, then by definition it is you speaking, not the text speaking.

Your words are your words.