Ex Christians

[Father Heathen]

Geez, there's alot of truths in books. It's not fair for you to say it's foolish to believe what a book says. And I don't just believe the Bible because the words are in a book. I believe it becasue it's God's inspired words.

There is a lot of truth in a lot of books, but it is foolish to believe irrational and unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Alceste]

Right they have to prove that she's a virgin, in otherwords, prove she hasn't had sex with other men. If she's not one then she's stoned(because she's been promiscous). God views sex outside of marriage as very bad.

I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this process. The family must produce physical proof of the girl's virginity, otherwise she is brutally murdered. I don' t see how promiscuity is even a factor. There are lots of reasons a girl might not bleed her first time. I certainly didn't. Should I be stoned to death?

Also, how can a process be considered just when the accused has to prove they DIDN'T commit a crime, rather than the accuser having to prove they did?

Anyway, I understand you are personally committed to believing that brutally murdering a girl on her wedding day if her hymen doesn't seem to be intact is "moral", although I find that very disturbing. Am I to understand, then, that you believe Jesus was wrong to put a stop to one of these "moral" executions?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I think there is a little bit of avoidence here when you say "if there was a law". Do you think there should be such a law?

I wasn't avoiding the question. I was just saying if God had given a law then I'd obey it. Again it's the choice of the women to go out and disobey the law and when she does disobey she's accepting the consequence.

If it was placed on the ballot (it could happen in North Carolina) that under these circumstances that promiscuous women would be stoned to death, would you vote for it. If you happened to get yourself elected to the legislature would you bring forth such a bill?

No

If your answer is still "yes I would approve" then I just don't know what else to say. If that is the case then your idea of morality is so completely alien to mine that I don't think I can understand. So then let me ask if you can understand why many people find this kind of "moral code" disgusting? Can you understand that?

I understand, people think their own morality is better than God's. However what makes my sense of morality better than yours. If I believe killing is wrong and you don't, which of us is correct?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Just speaking for myself, I'm way too pro-life to accept even the termination of adult life, let alone through something as painful as stoning, for something as relatively harmless as being... um.... uber-proactive in expressing physical affection.

God doesn't approve sex outside of marriage. It's a sin, and sin is repulsive to him. You don't see it as a bad thing, but so what? Does your opinion of what's good/bad mean it's right for everyone?

If something were legal, it wouldn't automatically make it right, imo

Agreed

 

[Alceste]

Geez, there's alot of truths in books. It's not fair for you to say it's foolish to believe what a book says. And I don't just believe the Bible because the words are in a book. I believe it becasue it's God's inspired words.

Brutally murdering a girl for not bleeding on her wedding night (regardless of the reason) is fair, but pointing out that it's foolish to believe things just because they're written in a book is unfair. Gotcha.

 

[Alceste]

I wasn't avoiding the question. I was just saying if God had given a law then I'd obey it. Again it's the choice of the women to go out and disobey the law and when she does disobey she's accepting the consequence.

No


I understand, people think their own morality is better than God's. However what makes my sense of morality better than yours. If I believe killing is wrong and you don't, which of us is correct?

But clearly you don't believe killing is wrong. You believe killing women who can't prove they are virgins is moral. That fact alone is reason enough for any thinking person to conclude your moral compass is pointing in some dark

As the only fundamentalist in this discussion, and also the lone defender of the practice of stoning women to death for being accused of sexual immorality (no evidence required), what are we to conclude about your bible based morality?

 

[CMike]

Brutally murdering a girl for not bleeding on her wedding night (regardless of the reason) is fair, but pointing out that it's foolish to believe things just because they're written in a book is unfair. Gotcha.

Your premise is untrue.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this process. The family must produce physical proof of the girl's virginity, otherwise she is brutally murdered. I don' t see how promiscuity is even a factor. There are lots of reasons a girl might not bleed her first time. I certainly didn't. Should I be stoned to death?

If someone's not a virgin then they've had sex before. The parents have to prove that their daughter has never had sex with a guy. If they can't prove that then the girl is stoned. Do you not agree the girl's being punished because she WASN'T a virgin?

Also, how can a process be considered just when the accused has to prove they DIDN'T commit a crime, rather than the accuser having to prove they did?

First off the crime would "be unjust" if the accused couldn't present evidence. Just because a guy "claimed" the women wasn't a virgin, she wasn't punished unless there was no evidence she was one.

Anyway, I understand you are personally committed to believing that brutally murdering a girl on her wedding day if her hymen doesn't seem to be intact is "moral", although I find that very disturbing. Am I to understand, then, that you believe Jesus was wrong to put a stop to one of these "moral" executions?

No, I believe the girl was stoned if she wasn't a virgin. I don't believe Jesus is wrong to stop an execution. Why should I believe that?

 

[Alceste]

Your premise is untrue.

Your rebuttal is incomplete.

 

[CMike]

Mike, you're going to find that what is typically discussed is the Christian point-of-view. The Jewish way of looking at things, particularly through the Talmud and rabbinic literature, isn't seen as being nearly as exicting.

What's frustrating is that it's the christian point of view regarding judaism.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Brutally murdering a girl for not bleeding on her wedding night (regardless of the reason)

Nowhere in that passage does it say she, "was murdered for not bleeding" you're just making assumptions. SHe was stoned because she wasn't a virgin.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Nowhere in that passage does it say she, "was murdered for not bleeding" you're just making assumptions. SHe was stoned because she wasn't a virgin.

How does one prove a man isn't a virgin on his wedding night? Does the Bible address this? And is he stoned to death?

 

[Alceste]

If someone's not a virgin then they've had sex before. The parents have to prove that their daughter has never had sex with a guy. If they can't prove that then the girl is stoned. Do you not agree the girl's being punished because she WASN'T a virgin?


First off the crime would "be unjust" if the accused couldn't present evidence. Just because a guy "claimed" the women wasn't a virgin, she wasn't punished unless there was no evidence she was one.


No, I believe the girl was stoned if she wasn't a virgin. I don't believe Jesus is wrong to stop an execution. Why should I believe that?

What form do you imagine this "proof of virginity" would take? How would you prove your own virginity, for example? Given that moderate physical exertion can rupture one's hymen, a bloody sheet doesn't cut it.

Also, if these murders were "moral" as you claim, why did Jesus interfere with one of them?

 

[CMike]

Your rebuttal is incomplete.

I already made it in a previous post. The standard for the death penality was so high that it made it virturally impossible to carry out.

Remember that we are talking about Judaism. These passages are jewish scriptures meant for jews.



The Talmud said that a jewish court that executed someone in 70 years was considered an evil court.


The Death Penalty in Jewish Tradition - My Jewish Learning

it is ruled that two witnesses
are required to testify not only that they witnessed the act for which the criminal has been charged

but that they had warned him beforehand that if he carried out the act he would be executed,

and he had to accept the warning,

stating his willingness to commit the act despite his awareness of its consequences.

The criminal's own confession is not accepted as evidence.

Moreover, circumstantial evidence is not admitted.[/quote]

 

[Vadergirl123]

But clearly you don't believe killing is wrong

No I don't believe killing is wrong. I believe murder is wrong.

As the only fundamentalist in this discussion, and also the lone defender of the practice of stoning women to death for being accused of sexual immorality (no evidence required), what are we to conclude about your bible based morality?

They had to produce evidence that they were virgins. If they did then they weren't stoned. Also this was a commandment God gave to the Israelites. He was in charge.

 

[Alceste]

Nowhere in that passage does it say she, "was murdered for not bleeding" you're just making assumptions. SHe was stoned because she wasn't a virgin.

So what is the "token" of virginity that the bride's family must produce to save her life? I admit i am speculating, but I've yet to hear any other reasonable interpretation.

 

[CMike]

No I don't believe killing is wrong. I believe murder is wrong.


They had to produce evidence that they were virgins. If they did then they weren't stoned. Also this was a commandment God gave to the Israelites. He was in charge.

Once again, you are incorrect.

 

[Vadergirl123]

What form do you imagine this "proof of virginity"

I don't know, but you shouldn't be saying the passage says the girl has to produce bloody sheets or she does. She was being stoned because she wasn't a virgin.

Also, if these murders were "moral" as you claim, why did Jesus interfere with one of them?

What's the passage in the Bible of this incident?

 

[Alceste]

How does one prove a man isn't a virgin on his wedding night? Does the Bible address this? And is he stoned to death?

If the rules were fair, you wouldn't have to prove anything. You could just accuse him and he would be brutally murdered for not being able to provide physical proof of his chastity. And no fancy stuff with chicken blood would save him.

 

[Vadergirl123]

How does one prove a man isn't a virgin on his wedding night? Does the Bible address this? And is he stoned to death?

No the man doesn't have to prove he's a virgin. However read the whole chapter. You'll see that men are punished too.(in fact if he rapes a woman pledged to a man then he's stoned)