lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
therefore ipso facto any sermon having to do with homosexuality or for that matter, any Bible study(or even reading I guess!) of Romans 1:25-26, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 all qualify as political speech due to the fact that so much of her policy has to do with homosexuality.
So how about 1 Peter 2:18, Exodus 21:7, and 1 Timothy 2:12? Or is this going to be more of a "freedom of the parts of religion I agree with and let's ignore the parts I don't" type of freedom discussions?
Nice.
Well the point of those version were directly relating to homosexuality..and I didn't include OT because those laws were not for Christians but for a very specific people during a very specific time for a very specific reason.. but I'll bite.
1 Peter 2:18
Household slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. When Christ returned, His disciples were expecting Him to violently overthrow the Romans and set up an earthly kingdom. Clearly this was not the purpose of why Christ came (at that time). He came to die. We are taught that our kingdom (at this time) is to be a spiritual kingdom. Our war is not against flesh and blood but it is against spiritual forces that seek to keep people from salvation.
That is why these verses do not say
"Slaves.. rebel and overthrown your masters, take vengeance on them and do unto them like they did unto you!" That would server no purpose. It would only serve the desires of the flesh for revenge.
Also: Unless you are wholly ignorant of this time period.. slavery was as normal and as common and accepted as ..well wage-slavery is today. Entire generations for hundreds of years were slaves. If suddenly.. by some miraculous occurrence.. all of the Christian slaves in the Roman Empire were free either by rebellion or escape.. What exactly do you think they would have been able to do? Where do you think they would have been able to go?
I suppose many people look at this verse and claim that this supports slavery become it doesn't condemn it outright.. No. These were people living in the Roman Empire. They would have no more been able to do anything about slavery than they would be able to overthrow the Caesars. There would be no point in condemning the evil that is slavery because it is a given that human beings are cruel by nature (just like the rest of nature).
There is also evidence that slaves converted their masters.. as well as prisoners converting their jailors. Paul himself seems to have converted at least a few of his Roman captors.. so being that the prime purpose of a Christian on earth is to bring as many people out of the darkness and into the Light as possible.. this scripture makes perfect sense.
Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do. So here we have slavery again. If you look at the passages before and after this you will see that this Law is in place to protect the female.
The special treatment given to female slaves was to ensure that they would not become homeless, destitute, and with no support.
Why is a man allowed to sell his daughter in the first place? What must be kept in mind is that this is an entirely closed exclusive community. The era that they were living in meant that your neighboring tribe was usually trying to kill you (especially if you're a Jew).. Therefore there really weren't many options to ensure that your children were fed, clothed, and sheltered. In reality this is more like indentured servitude. People were still expected not to act like stereo-typical Southern plantation owners. If a man found himself unable to feed his children.. then they are "sold as slaves" that is to say that they are provided with a roof over their heads.. and going by the next few passages there you will see that the rights of these woman were ensured that they could not be thrown out on the street.. which really meant to die in the wilderness or live as a prostitute.
Why does God seem to allow slavery in the first place? Hebrews selling themselves into indentured servitude is one thing... The Law was that after 7 years they were free of their servitude.. Not so with non-Hebrew slaves.. Why is this? Isn't God a God of Love? Why does God seem to love slavery?
Consider this.. You are living in a semi-nomadic Bronze Age tribe.. Your neighboring tribes are constantly trying to kill you and rape your women and steal your livestock and burn your homes to the ground... So they attack you.. You defeat them.. You have a bunch of POWs.. What is the ethical thing to do with these POWs? Options are.. slaughter them.. let them go.. enslave them. You can't let them go. If you let them go they will likely not be grateful and still try to kill you later on.. slaughtering them... well.. no. Enslaving them really seems to be the best thing to do in this situation. I am not justifying slavery because I cannot justify the circumstances that would force people into these situations.. what would would the other options entail? Allowing these blood-thirsty tribes to roam free to attempt to destroy you again in another generation? Or bring them into your tribe.. keep them under servitude.
It's a rough world. God could not say "Thou shalt not keep slaves" any more than He could say "Though shalt not get into fights with other tribes". People are going to do what people are going to do.. God was well aware that these situations would arise and made sure that there were guide lines to prevent the Jews from becoming as blood-thirsty and amoral as the rest of humanity.
1 Timothy 2:12
I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. So..
Being that there are plenty PLENTY of other places where Paul gives guidelines for both men and woman for public prayers and professions.. and there are also women mentioned that are highly respected among the elders.. if not elders themselves.. along with the account of Priscilla correcting a man on his incorrect understanding... this clearly can not carry the misogynistic meaning that people accuse it of.
This is a letter from one man to another man.. personal.. not written to an entire church.. Now look at the beginning of the letter:
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Paul is writing to Timothy concerning the false doctrine or false gospels being spread around in Ephesus. People were teaching other doctrines that were contrary to the salvation of the Messiah.. probably regarding both legalistic 'Judaizers'.. trying to tell non-Jews that they had to follow Mosaic law to be a Christian.. and probably a slew of Gnostics... You can see this reading the rest of the letter as Paul specifies and expounds upon the truth concerning those things.
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. It is more likely that this is a particular woman that was responsible for spreading some false gospel.. These would be the same people that wrote the Gnostic Gospels like the Gospel of Mary and Thomas and Judas.. Christian fan fiction by people that needed to study more and stop trying to put their own little slant on everything to suit their personal desires... There is even a
Gosple of Eve written around that time.
The Greek word for woman used in these passages is the Nominative Singular
gynē. Singular.
He follows with:
1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. While I could decide that this is simply Paul explaining to Timothy how woman are open to spiritual perception....and be fine with that.. It seems more likely to me that this is still one side of a polemic against whatever this false teaching from this particular woman was..
Having been into Gnosticism in the past.. it wouldn't surprise me that it didn't teach that the first thing in existence was a primordial Feminine cosmos which was inseminated by mystic God-sperm.. giving birth to the world.. pretty much the pagan duality God/Goddess archetypes that have dominate many other pagan religions.. only some of the Gnostics took it a step further and made the Female Goddess be before the the Male.. because her cosmic womb had to exist first to become inseminated with the God sperm.. (I'm not kidding! Look it up!) There also seemed to mix in Egyptian paganism into the mix with with the feminine Goddess figure.. that they interpreted the Hebrew Eve as an incarnation of a Mother Goddess that gives birth to God.. chops him up and scatters him into the world...
I'm guessing they had some really potent cannabis in 1st century Asia Minor.
Now since it still refers to these people as being amongst the church.. it also seems that whoever this woman is.. it seems that Paul still has hope for her as she settles down and comes to learn more into the truth of Christ..
Alternately 1 Corinthians 14:33–35 does refer to (plural) woman being silent and orders them to not be disruptive during church meetings by prophesying and speaking in tongues. Now I am not going to deny the Biblical view point that Males are dominant over Females.. and some of that view may have to do with this.. but the truth is Male and Females are not equal. One has a ***** and the other has a ******. And regardless of of what one chooses to do with those things biology is biology... but I digress... The church in Corinth was apparently very chaotic by it's description.. Also people at this time were new converts fresh out of Greco/Roman paganism.. Paul mentions that it is the law that forbids woman to try to assert their dominance over mean during these church meetings.. and yes, Christian men living in the Roman world probably (and UNjustifiably) got very upset when women started gain more confidence and break the old taboos.. But there is a time and a place for those things.. and it is not unreasonable.. as a Christian woman.. If you KNOW that these meat-headed men are going to get into a hissy-fit over you trying to participate in what traditionally were male situation.. the woman would be the adult in this situation and just let the men do their thing.. since they are going to be childish over it.. Also if it was indeed the law of the land that woman should not do certain things.. then they still could be seeking to follow the law of the land.. The Romans had all kinds of taboos about the presence of females.. Paul is trying to keep the peace in the place where he knew people were going to get bent out of shape.. and thus more chaos erupts.. distracting from the true mission of teaching and preaching the Gospel to the pagan world.