If a female TV reporter wears a hijab when reporting from a muslim country, might she be respecting the customs of that country?
It has been a few days with no reply.
If we consider the verses from Galations that I cited which says that men and women are to be treated as equals, then the verses from 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians, and Timothy are not "misogynistic," but rather teach that Christians are to observe the local customs and laws. To wit, if christians lived in a community where women were not permitted to speak in public by custom or law (even in a christian church--a public place) then that is the meaning behind, "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."
Thus in our modern society Episcopaleans, Anglicans, United Methodists and so on have female ordained ministers.
And no, there is no reason to cover theses verses in bible study since they do not apply in our modern culture and perhaps why they were not found in your student bible. But you were perfectly free to read them if you wanted to in a standard bible so, no one was trying to hide them from you.
On the other hand, when a female TV reporter is reporting from a muslim country where women by custom or law are to wear hijabs, then a female reporter will wear a hijab to respect the local customs or to obey local laws.
"And no, there is no reason to cover theses verses in bible study since they do not apply in our modern culture and perhaps why they were not found in your student bible."
Oh, cool! So we can ignore certain teachings in the bible as they become culturally irrelevant? Good thing we outgrew slavery as a culture.
"And no, there is no reason to cover theses verses in bible study since they do not apply in our modern culture and perhaps why they were not found in your student bible. But you were perfectly free to read them if you wanted to in a standard bible so, no one was trying to hide them from you."
If the Bible is the infallible word of Yahweh, I don't see how some parts would become irrelevant as our society develops. You are basically saying what I've been told by Christian pastors, "It was the way of life in those days...just ignore it and move on. Why not read about how much Jesus loves you, instead?"
Christians killed for apostasy in the past, as you can find in Islam today, but had to move on or the church would have died because modern norms in the west will no longer allow this action.
It gets down to what does the infallible word of god mean? Is any of god's word infallible if you can pick and choose?
Is any of god's word infallible if you can pick and choose?
Of course not. I see it as an error of logic. An infallible being would not be capable of making mistakes or being wrong. If you pick & choose from his 'word', you are showing that the being did make mistakes or was wrong on particular issues [slavery, oppression of women, death by stoning ect] and is therefore, not infallible.
Or she could be looking at imprisonment, physical harm or worse depending on the country involved.
Is it respect or fear?
I find it interesting how the christian church decides what is to followed and what can be ignored.
Because as a culture have moved beyond slavery as an example then all the laws passed down are ignored, but Jesus did say he was there to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament. So where is justification "we will observe this and ignore that come from"?
There are 613 laws in the OT given by their infallible god.
I'm sorry, but the responses to my post do not logically follow.
People who post on this site often claim to be intelligent. It would seem that most people like to think they are smarter than the next guy (pretty much everywhere you go--at work, at the coffee shop, at school, and so on--not just on think atheist), but the reality is that most people are of average intelligence between IQ 90 and IQ 110. Most people who post on think atheist are also within the average range of intelligence of the general population. Occassionaly one might find someone who is more intelligent than average and occasionally one might find somoeone who is less intelligent than average.
It is reasonable to believe that the persons responding to my literary criticism of the texts cited are of average intelligence.
I don't think that my literary criticism of the verses cited is beyond the grasp of persons of average intelligence.
It is reasonable to believe that persons of average intelligence can tell the difference between Mores, Etiquette, Morality, and Law.
Jim brought up the 613 Laws of the Torah. I had to look through them to find if one of the Mitzvot forbids women from speaking at Temple or in Church. I could not find find it. Perhaps one of you can find it:
I think I have clearly demonstrated that the verses cited 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians, and Timothy are a matter of Etiquette not Mores, Morailty nor Law.
Etiquette changes from culture to culture across the span of history. For example, the A-ok hand gesture in the United Sates is a sign that says "I'm ok" when referencing yourself or asks "are you ok?" when referencing an aquaintance.
In Brazil, however, it is equvalent to showing the middle finger.
Likewise, if a female TV reporter is reporting from a muslim country and it is the custom for women to wear a hijab then if she wears a hijab it is a matter of etiquette. In the United States there is no law that requires women to wear a hijab, but when a female reporter travels to a country where women are required to wear a hijab by law, then the Etiquette, Mores, Morailty or Laws of the United States do not apply. Do they? The reporter may be arrested, given a citation, or whatever penalties are prescribed by the local law if she fails to wear a hijab. So, she may wear the hijab out of fear of imprisonment, or fear of paying a fine.
I do not wish to single anyone out so I am now going to address responses to my literary criticism of the cited verses without reference to any specific person.
That I have clearly demonstrated that the verses cited are a matter of Etiquette and that such etiquette does not need to be observed in our modern culture, I am quite bewildered that the responses are, and I''m sorry to be so brutally honest about it, obtuse.
People who claim to be intelligent are usually expected to demonstrate their intelligence by providing a cogent argument. Just agreeing with each other is not an argument.
You can expect most theists to be of average intelligence and education but every once in a while you will encounter a theist who is highly intelligent and well educated--Francis Collins (Christian), Gerald Schroeder (Orthodox Jewish), being rather famous. Obviously you won't find yourselves debating with them, but you will encounter non-celebrities of similar education and intelligence. Are you content to sit on the porch with the puppies or do you want to run in the yard with the big dogs?