Yes. In those days more men gathered for meetings outside the home than women. However, women had clearly been welcomed by Christ and that tradition continued. As more women came to these gatherings the usual routine of those who had more experience became disorderly as each couple was asking and answering different questions. Save such give and take for the home environment. It is not unreasonable, so today let’s not make it into something that it wasn’t then.
This is the passage:
“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 anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
Sounds unreasonable today to shame women for speaking. I don’t defend slavery just because “that’s how it was”. Or not giving blacks the right to vote because “that’s just how it was”. Likewise, treating women as unequals, simply because they are women, I do not defend as being “just how it was”.
If morality is absolute and non subjective, we shouldn’t need to take the context of the people or times in which a supposedly God inspired text of law is written. One’s current culture in time is irrelevant to absolute, objective moral law.
Unless we open up the possibility that much of the Bible is simply and absolutely wrong in a moral context, there is no defense for using the Bible as a guideline for morality and law
Some call people who do this Cafeteria Christians. People will select and exclude scripture to fit their worldly narrative/ideology.
It’s to me more evidence that morality is subjective. Since even in the bible, no one can seem to agree on what’s moral or not, what’s God directed/inspired and what is not. People simply get drawn to passages/portions that confirm their own personal beliefs or biases
Be nice, be charitable, forgive people, don’t be selfish. It’s not that hard to get the main points.
Well, .00002% of verses are about women speaking in church or homosexuality. We’d better focus on that!
Some people would turn down a free Ferrari because they don’t like the shape of the floor mats…
I agree. It would be nice if fundamentalists could move beyond the idea that women and gays don’t have equal rights. Unfortunately this view still exists in our government’s leaders, rationalized by such passages
As a Christian who has done this at points during my walk, I totally agree. The faith in my opinion need to move past trying to use the Christianity and letting people others use Christianity as a means to gain/maintain worldly power and control.
Right. It kind of goes against the idea of secularism especially when one goes as far as to assert their religion has ownership over the creation of our bill of rights.
I think a philosophical case for Christianity’s moral validity can be made as long as God is not omnipotent and omniscient. It’s when claims of man’s actions (writing of the bible) get conflated with the nature of God, especially when God is labeled as being benevolent AND omniscient/omnipotent.
Get rid of just one of the latter, 90%+ of the contradictions vanish.
1 Like
Other things to consider: Not everything in the Bible is about the individual who is studying it. The Bible does address issues that have since been resolved.
When issues such as the one presented in the OP arise, it is always good to ask about its present purpose? Is it to turn women away from the Bible? Is it to discredit the Bible? If so, for what purpose?
That is why I feel it is important to go back to the original history and culture. What problems were arising in the newly formed Christian Church? How did people try to resolve them?
Don’t forget love.
I agree.
I often tell people if you want the best teaching on how those in the faith should be living life, read the sermon on the mount. To me Yeshua set up the blueprint, but unfortunately it’s often ignored for that .00002%
I think we all understand that majority of people 1000s years ago were barbarians with a severe lack of moral guidance when it comes to women’s rights.
So, we can establish that either:
A) God’s morality is fluid according to “the times”
Or
B) We assert what God’s morality is, based on our current time.
I vote B
That returns us to the question of who, exactly, is bringing up that .00002% and what is their purpose? Those who truly practice their faith are more about bringing the Sermon on the Mount into their lives, and making it a living, breathing part of who they are.
1 Like
I agree.
I often recommend Bible Manners & Customs. It’s a great reference in regards to the culture during that time.
edit…
This is the one I have…
That’s the question of interpretation. Everyone thinks their interpretation is correct, many times enabling this assertion by projecting their own personal biases into their decision when selecting which passages to follow.
The things that are “good” in the Bible are never claimed to be “just the times” - this way it can be asserted to be “good” now too.
How do we know when to abide by the bible as the word of God and when to assume it is only a story taken out of context?
1 Like
So you say.
Case in point.
Great example of lib cherry-picking!
Liberals generally aren’t the ones using such passages to enact public policy.
Who started this thread again?
Yet it’s the lib assertion here that others are cherry-picking. 
Years of study. Jews have long maintained that the Bible is to be studied, not read. It is good advice.
