Political Crossfire Forums

[name]

Religions- particularly the ones based on ancient written teachings such as the Bible and Quran- never change. Religion does not adapt the way laws do. Yes, I know that burning witches at the stake and stuff like that is pretty much over, but at its core, religions remain rigid. As humans, it's natural for us to adapt. As the human race advances its knowledge, we discover more of the truth beyond current religious teachings, and we adjust our society as such so that it works better for all through changing laws. For example, we have growing scientific evidence that homosexuality can be biologically based. We have seen that homosexual relationships are not dismantling our society, let alone invoking some divine wrath. But you can't amend the Bible to accept that homosexual unions are not 'abominations,' but legitimate, loving relationships that aren't harming anyone. Isn't the Bible supposed to teach us to love? Also, many major religions support an 'ideal' family as a patriarchal structure, but we know that this doesn't always work best; it depends entirely on the nature of the couple. And what about religious tolerance? Haven't we figured out by now that the world won't fall apart when other people practice different belief systems? And yet we fight wars fueled by intolerance.
Religions are like Constitutions that we can't amend. We're stuck with the ideas people came up with centuries ago. Those people just didn't understand as much as we do today. Today, we can accept things that they were afraid of. But religion can't. This is my problem with religion.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Quote: Social Problems of Religion

Religion in Human Experience

The Real Nature of Religion

The Foundations of Religious Faith

The Reality of Religious Experience

http://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html#PARTIII


Perhaps reading these papers on this subject will assist you in your quest for answers?

[Rozzlapeed]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Quote: Social Problems of Religion

Religion in Human Experience

The Real Nature of Religion

The Foundations of Religious Faith

The Reality of Religious Experience

http://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html#PARTIII


Perhaps reading these papers on this subject will assist you in your quest for answers?

I haven't yet seen the Urantia book used as a reference around here. Are you trying to be funny?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Rozzlapeed wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Quote: Social Problems of Religion

Religion in Human Experience

The Real Nature of Religion

The Foundations of Religious Faith

The Reality of Religious Experience

http://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html#PARTIII


Perhaps reading these papers on this subject will assist you in your quest for answers?

I haven't yet seen the Urantia book used as a reference around here.
Are you trying to be funny?
What's your problem with My 'religion' ?

[Gryff1nd0r]

name wrote: Religions- particularly the ones based on ancient written teachings such as the Bible and Quran- never change. Religion does not adapt the way laws do. Yes, I know that burning witches at the stake and stuff like that is pretty much over, but at its core, religions remain rigid. As humans, it's natural for us to adapt. As the human race advances its knowledge, we discover more of the truth beyond current religious teachings, and we adjust our society as such so that it works better for all through changing laws. For example, we have growing scientific evidence that homosexuality can be biologically based. We have seen that homosexual relationships are not dismantling our society, let alone invoking some divine wrath. But you can't amend the Bible to accept that homosexual unions are not 'abominations,' but legitimate, loving relationships that aren't harming anyone. Isn't the Bible supposed to teach us to love? Also, many major religions support an 'ideal' family as a patriarchal structure, but we know that this doesn't always work best; it depends entirely on the nature of the couple. And what about religious tolerance? Haven't we figured out by now that the world won't fall apart when other people practice different belief systems? And yet we fight wars fueled by intolerance.
Religions are like Constitutions that we can't amend. We're stuck with the ideas people came up with centuries ago. Those people just didn't understand as much as we do today. Today, we can accept things that they were afraid of. But religion can't. This is my problem with religion.

That is a very real problem, but you have to see it from their perspective: religion is not the problem, the rest of the world is. Religion is not wrong because it fails to adapt; the world is wrong because it fails to stay the same.

Christians believe that our world is on a crash course to judgement day, when Jesus will take the Christians to heaven and leave the rest of the world to burn under the wrath of the antichrist. My father (I was raised Catholic) constantly reminded me, in his big scary voice, "WE LIVE IN A CONDEMNED WORLD! THE WORLD IS SATAN'S REALM! SATAN CORRUPTS, AND HE WILL KEEP CORRUPTING UNTIL THE COMING OF CHRIST! THE PROPHECY IS BEING FULLFILLED! AMERICA IS TURNING INTO SODOM, EUROPE HAS GONE TO ONE CURRENCY! WE ARE CONDEMNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And then he would kiss me goodnight.

So... you see why Christians can fight this change, and at the same time, not lose thier faith because Revelations predicts the moral decline of humanity. It works out perfectly. I'm not sure what the Islamic or Judaic perspective is on this issue (although we can see how Muslims are adapting to a changing world.... not very well, IMO..) But I know that Muslims, like Christians, view the world in terms of a constant battle between good and evil.

You just have to remember that their definition of "evil" is not rational, it is based on a creed that lays out the boundaries of good and evil (sometimes in disturbingly ambiguous ways). The creed warns not to be suaded by evil under any circumstances, so it basically prohibits rationally deciding for oneself what is evil... you can't rationally decide what is evil, because it doesn't matter what you think is evil, it matters what God thinks. Since they irrationally believe their book was written by God, you can't argue with them (because that means arguing with God... proposterous!).

[eynon]

name wrote: Religions- particularly the ones based on ancient written teachings such as the Bible and Quran- never change. Religion does not adapt the way laws do. Yes, I know that burning witches at the stake and stuff like that is pretty much over, but at its core, religions remain rigid. As humans, it's natural for us to adapt. As the human race advances its knowledge, we discover more of the truth beyond current religious teachings, and we adjust our society as such so that it works better for all through changing laws. For example, we have growing scientific evidence that homosexuality can be biologically based. We have seen that homosexual relationships are not dismantling our society, let alone invoking some divine wrath. But you can't amend the Bible to accept that homosexual unions are not 'abominations,' but legitimate, loving relationships that aren't harming anyone. Isn't the Bible supposed to teach us to love? Also, many major religions support an 'ideal' family as a patriarchal structure, but we know that this doesn't always work best; it depends entirely on the nature of the couple. And what about religious tolerance? Haven't we figured out by now that the world won't fall apart when other people practice different belief systems? And yet we fight wars fueled by intolerance.
Religions are like Constitutions that we can't amend. We're stuck with the ideas people came up with centuries ago. Those people just didn't understand as much as we do today. Today, we can accept things that they were afraid of. But religion can't. This is my problem with religion.

I find your presmise interesting, although I must disagree. True we live in a far more affluent and technologically advanced society then our ancestors, but have those factors brought about any type of substancial change in our character? I doubt it......as the old saying goes "times change, people don't".

All those questions you brought up; the validity of homosexual realtionships....the need for religious tolerance.....religion feuling ignorance....all these were issues brought up thousands of years before and indeed were issues hurled at the early Christians by more secular Hellenistic thinkers.

As to the Patriarcial centered family structure, I conceed that many in the past have used and abused Christian teachings out of context to hold men above woman. Of course I believe that Christianity doesn't teach a Male centered family, but rather a Christ centered family. Please don't consider that a cop-out, but rather that a Christian house-hold should not be lead by any man, but by the teachings of our god. And remember that those teachings were of love, patients, humility, kindness, and grace.....I fail to see what's wrong with that.

As to the issues of teh Bible and specifically the NT not being relevent today, I whole-heartdly disagree......do we in our modern society still have: economic expolitation? religious legalism? poverty? illness? abused childeren? sexual exploitation? cruelty? callouness? dis-interest? racism? bigotry? favortism? usury? greed? wrath?..........all these and many more are issues dealt with both by Christ and his followers in way that are for every time and every culture.

Consider what the book of James said, "True religion to G-d is the caring for of widows and orphans."(quoting from memory here).....consider that in a modern context "True religion to G-d is caring for the helpless"........what's outdated about that concept?

Indeed my suggestion would be to read the books of Mathew, John, and James....then come-back and say that the life they preach is not relevent to our day and age.

[name]

"I find your presmise interesting, although I must disagree. True we live in a far more affluent and technologically advanced society then our ancestors, but have those factors brought about any type of substancial change in our character? I doubt it......as the old saying goes "times change, people don't"."

Our characters haven't changed, but today we have the knowledge to be much more tolerant and accepting than the Bible and other religious books allow.

"All those questions you brought up; the validity of homosexual realtionships....the need for religious tolerance.....religion feuling ignorance....all these were issues brought up thousands of years before and indeed were issues hurled at the early Christians by more secular Hellenistic thinkers. "

True, but we have a much more tolerant atmosphere now. I mean, a few centuries ago, homosexuals didn't just make people uncomfortable, they were killed for being 'abominations'. Today it's pretty common knowledge that it just doesn't make sense to discourage homosexuality as a 'sin' because evidence shows that it's often biological, not just an act. It's not just the opinion of some radical secular thinkers; it's got a growing scientific base of evidence.

"As to the Patriarcial centered family structure, I conceed that many in the past have used and abused Christian teachings out of context to hold men above woman. Of course I believe that Christianity doesn't teach a Male centered family, but rather a Christ centered family. Please don't consider that a cop-out, but rather that a Christian house-hold should not be lead by any man, but by the teachings of our god. And remember that those teachings were of love, patients, humility, kindness, and grace.....I fail to see what's wrong with that. "


Yes, people have abused Christian teachings in a sexist way... but the point is, you don't even have to misinterpret anything. It's clearly written in the Bible that women are not to 'usurp authority over a man' and that they are to be silent listeners rather than teachers. I can find you the passage if you like. I know that it's not the point of the Bible itself to keep women down, but that's just the point I'm making: back then, people thought that this was the 'natural order' between men and women: that men do the teaching and leading while women stay silent and follow. Today we know that this is not the case, but I still hear many Christians bemoaning the way that their 'order' is falling apart thanks to feminism.

[eynon]

Quote: Our characters haven't changed, but today we have the knowledge to be much more tolerant and accepting than the Bible and other religious books allow.

I think that's more due to our affluence then to any knowlage we've attained......good times tend to make people more laid back, our Post-modern culture has yet to really role through any major trials. But as to the specifics of the bible itself I'd state that the NT argues for tolerance....more-over it could be argued that a revival in tolerant NT style christianity in the late 17th early 18th century really was what brought about the wave of tolerance in our modern culture.

Quote: True, but we have a much more tolerant atmosphere now. I mean, a few centuries ago, homosexuals didn't just make people uncomfortable, they were killed for being 'abominations'. Today it's pretty common knowledge that it just doesn't make sense to discourage homosexuality as a 'sin' because evidence shows that it's often biological, not just an act. It's not just the opinion of some radical secular thinkers; it's got a growing scientific base of evidence.

open homosexuality was more common in the past then most people think, the specifics depend on what period of history and the individuals' class.

Anyways the view of homo-sexuality as an "abomination" is hardly limited to modern religious fundimentalists.......The Athiest goverment in China out-lawed homosexuality until the early 90s, Broke-back Mounatin was banned, and I can tell you after living over there that their "non-religious" society is much more hostile to homosexuality then our religious one.

Quote: t's clearly written in the Bible that women are not to 'usurp authority over a man' and that they are to be silent listeners rather than teachers. I can find you the passage if you like.

please do :-D that is, from the NT and aside from Paul's line about "women being silent in church"......that was specific and if often takin out of context.


as to Christianity and Feminism being at odds, in other threads I've argued that nothing could be further from the truth....real feminism that is. On the other hand the Rad-fem godess worshiping style feminism does run contrary to Christian teachings............

[adrenalinejunkie]

name wrote: Yes, people have abused Christian teachings in a sexist way... but the point is, you don't even have to misinterpret anything. It's clearly written in the Bible that women are not to 'usurp authority over a man' and that they are to be silent listeners rather than teachers.
But you are misinterpreting it now. Or... actually just using a common misinterpretation. It didn't say ursurp authority over a man period. The context was the spiritual authority in the church. So that scripture wasn't speaking of the authority of men in society in general, just the church leadership. Specifically, the position of overseer or elder. Women did serve in many other capacities including as a deaconess in the early church. Neither did Paul call it a sin, but simply presented this as the best way. A way that was God ordained. Yet God himself used women in positions of leadership when the men wouldn't step up to the plate. Deborah in Judges.

And women taught in the New Testament as well, and Paul gave them instructions on how to pray in church, but yes the authority to challenge the teaching (as was common in synagogues at the time) and the spiritual authority over the church was meant for the guys. It's real easy to go too far with this stuff.

And we all know the church has gone farther than the text too many times as it is.

name wrote: that's just the point I'm making: back then, people thought that this was the 'natural order' between men and women: that men do the teaching and leading while women stay silent and follow. Today we know that this is not the case, but I still hear many Christians bemoaning the way that their 'order' is falling apart thanks to feminism.

I really do think you have an interesting perspective on this, and like our disagreement above, I don't blame you for using these things as Exhibit A or B or Q because there ARE a lot of Christians bemoaning feminism, etc...

But I simply think that the main problem isn't really attributible to the religious text ie the Bible. The problem is the followers of this text have been too careless in their understanding and application of it, and too careless in their treatment of others. My two cents anyway.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: That is a very real problem, but you have to see it from their perspective: religion is not the problem, the rest of the world is. Religion is not wrong because it fails to adapt; the world is wrong because it fails to stay the same.

Christians believe that our world is on a crash course to judgement day, when Jesus will take the Christians to heaven and leave the rest of the world to burn under the wrath of the antichrist. My father (I was raised Catholic) constantly reminded me, in his big scary voice, "WE LIVE IN A CONDEMNED WORLD! THE WORLD IS SATAN'S REALM! SATAN CORRUPTS, AND HE WILL KEEP CORRUPTING UNTIL THE COMING OF CHRIST! THE PROPHECY IS BEING FULLFILLED! AMERICA IS TURNING INTO SODOM, EUROPE HAS GONE TO ONE CURRENCY! WE ARE CONDEMNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And then he would kiss me goodnight.

So... you see why Christians can fight this change, and at the same time, not lose thier faith because Revelations predicts the moral decline of humanity. It works out perfectly. I'm not sure what the Islamic or Judaic perspective is on this issue (although we can see how Muslims are adapting to a changing world.... not very well, IMO..) But I know that Muslims, like Christians, view the world in terms of a constant battle between good and evil.

You just have to remember that their definition of "evil" is not rational, it is based on a creed that lays out the boundaries of good and evil (sometimes in disturbingly ambiguous ways). The creed warns not to be suaded by evil under any circumstances, so it basically prohibits rationally deciding for oneself what is evil... you can't rationally decide what is evil, because it doesn't matter what you think is evil, it matters what God thinks. Since they irrationally believe their book was written by God, you can't argue with them (because that means arguing with God... proposterous!).

I disagree obviously with a few things here and there, but really I am impressed with your post. My only question...

Why is it irrational to believe the Bible was written (inspired) by God?
What is your underlying assumption? God doesn't exist? The Koran was written by God, not the Bible? God wouldn't use Hebrew, he'd write it in French? :-) What?

[Rozzlapeed]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Rozzlapeed wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Quote: Social Problems of Religion

Religion in Human Experience

The Real Nature of Religion

The Foundations of Religious Faith

The Reality of Religious Experience

http://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html#PARTIII


Perhaps reading these papers on this subject will assist you in your quest for answers?

I haven't yet seen the Urantia book used as a reference around here.
Are you trying to be funny?
What's your problem with My 'religion' ?

Nothing at all. It's just that I picked up the Urantia book at a yard sale a couple months ago, and I find its belief system to be very...unique. I like to read a passage or two aloud, whenever I have guests. It tends to lighten the mood.

[Gryff1nd0r]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: Why is it irrational to believe the Bible was written (inspired) by God?
What is your underlying assumption? God doesn't exist? The Koran was written by God, not the Bible? God wouldn't use Hebrew, he'd write it in French? :-) What?

It is irrational because there is no reason to believe it in the first place, other than it claims to be inspired by God... but so do other religions. So why does one book have more credibility than another? They don't. It is a blind guess.

Further, there are errors in logic and inconsistencies. The God of the OT is nothing like Jesus, yet they are said to be one and the same. The God of the OT is cruel and has many personality changes. The life of Jesus was not recorded as it happened, it was written down 70 years after the fact... and we all know what happens to stories passed down orally over a time period like that: they get embellished, exagerated, and changed. Reason suggests that that is exactly what happened.

There are many other reasons to disbelieve, but I will end with a quote from the Bible itself: "You can judge a tree by its fruit". How do you judge the fruit of Christianity? Pick up a history book, and the picture is grim (and violent). A God who is perfect and loving as the Bible claims Him to be would not allow this to happen... if he cannot stop atrocities, then he is weak and useless. If he can stop atrocities and chooses not to, he is a monster. Too many errors in the logic of a personal God for it to be true, IMO.

[BastionOfSanity]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: Why is it irrational to believe the Bible was written (inspired) by God?
What is your underlying assumption? God doesn't exist? The Koran was written by God, not the Bible? God wouldn't use Hebrew, he'd write it in French? :-) What?

It is irrational because there is no reason to believe it in the first place, other than it claims to be inspired by God... but so do other religions. So why does one book have more credibility than another? They don't. It is a blind guess.


Like the universe's existance...

[name]

The sexist reference from the New Testament.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

2:9 In the same way,
that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing,
with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;
2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man,
but to be in quietness.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing,
if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

[LetsGetReal]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: Why is it irrational to believe the Bible was written (inspired) by God?
What is your underlying assumption? God doesn't exist? The Koran was written by God, not the Bible? God wouldn't use Hebrew, he'd write it in French? :-) What?

It is irrational because there is no reason to believe it in the first place, other than it claims to be inspired by God... but so do other religions. So why does one book have more credibility than another? They don't. It is a blind guess.

Further, there are errors in logic and inconsistencies. The God of the OT is nothing like Jesus, yet they are said to be one and the same. The God of the OT is cruel and has many personality changes. The life of Jesus was not recorded as it happened, it was written down 70 years after the fact... and we all know what happens to stories passed down orally over a time period like that: they get embellished, exagerated, and changed. Reason suggests that that is exactly what happened.

There are many other reasons to disbelieve, but I will end with a quote from the Bible itself: "You can judge a tree by its fruit". How do you judge the fruit of Christianity? Pick up a history book, and the picture is grim (and violent). A God who is perfect and loving as the Bible claims Him to be would not allow this to happen... if he cannot stop atrocities, then he is weak and useless. If he can stop atrocities and chooses not to, he is a monster. Too many errors in the logic of a personal God for it to be true, IMO. Is any belief in the beginning of the Universe rational then? Your interpretation of the bible leads me to believe that you have very little concept of the Jewish/Christian God?

And like I've said I beleive in the bible because of the experiences I've had from following it and you can tell that what it speaks is the truth.

[Headrattle]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: Why is it irrational to believe the Bible was written (inspired) by God?
What is your underlying assumption? God doesn't exist? The Koran was written by God, not the Bible? God wouldn't use Hebrew, he'd write it in French? What?

Since there is no evidence that God wrote or inspired the Bible, it is irrational. In order for it to be rational it would need evidence.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
It is irrational because there is no reason to believe it in the first place, other than it claims to be inspired by God... but so do other religions.

But the Bible makes definite historical claims. It isn't speaking of an ancient civilization for which we have zero records like the Book of Mormon or stories from events in heaven like... isn't it Hindu? Maybe something else I forget... The Bible also makes prophetic claims of events in the real world.

So whether you believe it or not, and no matter what side of the argument you are on as far as the accuracy of the Bible goes, your belief in the Bible or lack of it, is a very rational process. It should be debated on actual evidence, thus, rationally.

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
Further, there are errors in logic and inconsistencies. The God of the OT is nothing like Jesus, yet they are said to be one and the same. The God of the OT is cruel and has many personality changes.

Have you read Hebrews? Regardless, the Bible has more to debate and more to possibly support it above any other ancient writing. I say possibly because obviously you don't believe the evidence supports it, yet nevertheless I do. All I'm really saying is that whatever conclusion intelligent people come to in regards to the Bible, it is rational. Only one of us is correct, but I think we are both rational.

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
The life of Jesus was not recorded as it happened, it was written down 70 years after the fact... and we all know what happens to stories passed down orally over a time period like that: they get embellished, exagerated, and changed. Reason suggests that that is exactly what happened.
But you will believe everything you read from Gallic Wars. Reason suggests that oral history in the Bible was not exaggerated or else the characters in it would have been portrayed in a much better and more flattering light. They were often portrayed as dolts, so I don't personally agree with you on this one.

The earliest undisputed manuscript of a New Testament book is the John Rylands Papyri dated AD 117-138, most scholars believe it was composed AD 95. That's 55 years approximately after the death of Christ. Since it was written in Asia Minor and was found in Egypt, the demand for some circulation time would place the composition of John in the first century. -(Systematic Theology, Geisler page 462)

British manuscript scholar Sir Frederick Kenyon wrote:
"The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. (Thus) both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.

So disgree fine. But I do think we are rationally debating.

Gryff1nd0r wrote:
There are many other reasons to disbelieve, but I will end with a quote from the Bible itself: "You can judge a tree by its fruit". How do you judge the fruit of Christianity? Pick up a history book, and the picture is grim (and violent). A God who is perfect and loving as the Bible claims Him to be would not allow this to happen... if he cannot stop atrocities, then he is weak and useless. If he can stop atrocities and chooses not to, he is a monster. Too many errors in the logic of a personal God for it to be true, IMO.

Are there grim scenes in world history? Yes. Caused by "Christians?" Yes. But take away Christianity and you take away the vast majority of all the worlds charitable programs, the golden rule, the vast majority of all the worlds hospitals, plus much of the world's art, educational institutions, and even the very concept of human rights that has transformed the world since ancient times. So let's be fair. There's a lot of good. If you don't see it, you should simply walk in any evangelical (you know, the really evil guys) church in America and count how much money goes to help people in their community and around the world. More than any other religion, by far.

I'm not saying you don't have a point there, there's just another side to that coin. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Thoughtful stuff. Catch ya later!

[adrenalinejunkie]

Headrattle wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: Why is it irrational to believe the Bible was written (inspired) by God?
What is your underlying assumption? God doesn't exist? The Koran was written by God, not the Bible? God wouldn't use Hebrew, he'd write it in French? What?

Since there is no evidence that God wrote or inspired the Bible, it is irrational. In order for it to be rational it would need evidence.

Well see my big post earlier to the original question. My point is there IS evidence, but rational people disagree on it. I think it's marginalizing and name calling to say anyone who disagrees with me is irrational. Obviously, the amount of scholarship devoted to the study of the evidence, and the debate as to whether or not evidence exists, whether it supports the Bible or detracts, indicates this is a very rational argument. No matter what you end up concluding.

For instance: Archaeologists may say there is zero evidence of the Israelites wandering in the desert, destroying Jericho, and destroying Ai.

Yet, Egypt collapsed, Jericho was destroyed, Ai was destroyed, and a nomadic group of people left a campsite with 284 sites in the northern Sinai pennisula all in the same time period. The problem is, the date doesn't seem to match up with when we believe the Exodus took place. Misses it by nearly a thousand years. 2400 something BC instead of 1400 something BC.

Yet the timelie for the supposed Exodus is tenuous, and how many times have we changed timelines. Shoot, we've changed the age of the universe 1.4 billion years since we began mapping the size of it. So it's zero evidence or ALL the evidence in this case all depending on our date for the Exodus. Sooooo.... no matter what you conclude, it's still a rational argument over real archaeology. That's all I'm saying.

[adrenalinejunkie]

name wrote: The sexist reference from the New Testament.
1 Timothy 2:9-15
2:9 In the same way,
that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing,
with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;
2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man,
but to be in quietness.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing,
if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

A similar one is in I Corinthians 14. He says there as well that women were to be silent, yet in chapter 11 of the same book he told them how they should be dressed when they spoke. So it requires a bit of study and cultural context to see what he was meaning by all of this.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible talked about the issue this way:
It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them;

It's a looong discussion to get into, but my personal view is that understanding this properly forces us to look at the cultural context of the day, and I personally believe the principles are:
1. Men were to exercise authority in the Church in teaching, preaching, instructing in matters of religious doctrine and discipline.
2. Women were to show respect for that, and working in the church in other leadership capacities is fine.
3. Men were to show love and devotion to their wives in complete selflessness.
4. God uses women throughout the Church and in many ways, and -when men do not take leadership of spiritual things, God may call a woman to take that role as well. He did in the Bible at other times.

Just my view.

[eynon]

nice posts Junkie, very thoughtful......this thread is turing into quite the nice discussion.......thanks all