The verse says a woman cannot have authority over a man. They must be silent. That is what it says word for word. Don't try to wriggle out of this by saying, "Oh, but it's only in X situation". In church, or out of church, this is a disgusting mentality that has no place in society.
And saying that it was a long time ago is no excuse for such an archaic and oppressive statement. If this is how things were ran in that time, then why didn't an elightened man of Christ such as this one speak out against the oppression of women?
I'll tell you why.
It's because religion isn't the word of a higher power that is inherantly "good". It doesn't stand for the rights of women, blacks, homosexuals and transgender people. It stands for old superstition and outdated oppression. Religion is a snapshot of all the bigotry, superstition and irrationality of that time period. As time goes on and people realise that subserviency isn't okay, religion may grudgingly change its mind. But, Jesus, it took God a bloody long time to figure that women aren't animals, huh?
No. What was God testing him for? Psychopathy? If so, Isaac definitely passed. In what universe is a willingness to kill your own son a desirable trait? What moral does this teach? That if the voices in your head tell you to kill your own son, you should stab him to death to prove your "faith"? I find that a deplorable example of the filth that is religion.
I conclude this particular argument with an exerpt from one of my favourite songs.
You can't weasel out of the existance of slavery but hiding behind a slight ambiguity of the word. It might mean 'slavery'. I might mean 'hippopotamuses'. But chances are it means 'slavery', and the fact remains that the modern version of the Bible condones slavery.
I actually know quite a bit about what happened before and after, as I have a nice picture book about it and a handy tool called Google. There was nothing said the Jews demanding a King in this chapter. This guy chose to send out his concubine to be abused and raped in order to protect the much-more-important man who was staying with him.
Afterwards, he put the corpse on his donkey and went home, before cutting the corpse into twelve pieces and sending it all throughout Israel. Then they declared religous war and killed pretty much every Benjimanite. Then they felt sorry about that because the tribe would die out, so you know what they did? They went somewhere else and killed and pillaged, and brought back some virgins to give to the Benjaminites. Which God supported.
"Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. 11 This is what you shall do: severy male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at tShiloh, which is in the land of Canaan."
"And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, “Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards 21 and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to adance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and ****** each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin."
Still think the context of this passage excuses its barbaric contents? All throughout this, God punished the entire Benjamin tribe indiscriminately because of that occurrence, but the man who sent the concubine out in the first place didn't even get a second glance. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that the tribes seemed more angry about the destruction of the man's "property" than the actual loss of the life of a woman.
I find this absolutely disgusting.