Response to J.B.

This post will be responding to J.B.'s post "on" Margaret Fell. I'll take one point at a time.

JB: Her examples of brave women speaking (stories such as Judith's) are in direct contradiction of Paul's statement: "it is a shame for a Woman, to speak in the Church". This proves that a literal interpretation is almost completely impossible because of the inherent contradictions among the multiple authors.

Paul's writings in the New Testament were specifically addressed to specific churches, and therefore any intelligence demands that we read them as such (letters addressing specific problems at specific churches). There is no contradiction if a parent tells one child that he cannot go to a friends house and another that he can (a simple change in circumstances would reconcile your "direct contradiction."

JB:Some other examples of this are Matthew's claim that Joseph's father was named Jacob, which contradicts Luke's claim that Joseph's father was named Eli and the other many contradictions appearing when the synoptic gospels (the gospels belonging to Luke, Matthew and Mark) are compared to the gospel of John.

I am assuming that the verse in which you are referring is this: "And Jesus Himself had become about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli," (Luke 3:23 NKJV). This is simply a case of translators attempting to make reading easier for an English audience changing the meaning. If the parenthesise are removed (because they are not present in the original Greek), it says that Jesus (who people supposed was the son of Joseph) was actually the son of Heli (or Eli). Heli was Mary's father, and since (following Biblical teaching) Jesus had no earthly father, his linage would be followed through his mother's father.

JB:One thing that bothers me about modern religion, especially Christianity, is how everything has to have a rooting in the Bible. For instance, many Christians (in particular 7th Day Adventists) believe the Bible supports a strict vegetarian diet, while many others disagree pointing to many examples of meat being eaten. Which brings up the point: Can't people make decisions based purely on intelligent reasoning, or even prayer if it comes down to that? is it so wrong for someone to say - "yeah, eating meat is unhealthy, bad for animals and the environment, and is wasting resources" and then decide to become vegetarian without looking for biblical justification. Based on reason, it does not make sense for women to be prevented from talking in Church, or prohibiting them from the priesthood.

Lets start with your gross generalization: There are an estimated 10 million Seventh-day Adventists our of 2.1 BILLION Christians world-wide (http://www.adherents.com/). I doubt that any large enough percentage to justify the word "many" don't eat meat based on a belief that it is Biblical.

I will admit that the elevation of religious tradition to Biblical mandate is one point that I have brought up in my "dealings" with several Christian denominations, but I strongly disagree with your belief that a reliance on the Bible or any religious text for that matter for direction in every day life is by no means preposterous. The humanist rejection of allowing anything that doesn't come from an individual's own reasoning to guide ones life is absolutely ridiculous (especially if you were to take your morals from the mind of a violent criminal).

I also agree that based on reason there is no purpose for a woman to not be able to speak in church, but I would argue that the commands and "rules" dictated to Christians are based on reason.

JB:Christians take the Bible to be "divinely inspired" which seems to be a misplaced leap of faith since it was written by humans and there are a plethora of examples of human error. Without reasoning through some of the Bible's philosophies, many dangerous things can easily transpire. It goes back to that saying, "God gave [us] the Bible, but he also gave [us] a brain."

To finish this post off, a belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture would be no more of a "misplaced leap of faith" in the eyes of a secular-humanists than a belief in God. Your quote seems to express this perfectly. The humanist believes that God didn't give us the Bible, and also believes that God didn't give us a brain--in fact he doesn't believe there is a God. I guess what I am asking (in sort of a ranty style) is when is a religious belief not a "misplaced leap of faith?" In other words: If God exists, why could he not inspire humans to write sacred texts?