Alceste
Vagabond
Seems a little implausible, since honour killings are still pitifully common in the region that spawned this religion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ex Christians
- Thread starter Vadergirl123
- Start date
Seems a little implausible, since honour killings are still pitifully common in the region that spawned this religion.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
So then I just follow whoever has the gun? Whoever has the gun is right? What if some new person kills you and they give me new rules to follow that go against your previous rules. I now follow them right?
If everyone has guns then no.
God created all of us, and he's perfect while we're sinful so yeah he can make whatever rules he wants. You don't have to follow them though.
Me Myself
Back to my username
All our sins are his, because as the maker that had full understanding of every single one of our actions before creating us, he is fully responsable for both the good and the bad that we do, because we are the good and the bad that he did and keeps doing.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
The translations aren't the pure word of God no, but they're about 98%accurate. Also they do say it's a cloth, but not having a cloth wouldn't have meant she wasn't a virgin.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
The Hebrew word for kill is ratsac which refers to intentional killing without cause.
I never said/claimed God doesn't kill. However he has every right too, he's perfect and we're sinfull.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
Yes he woudl've had every right to, but he was being merciful, just as he was merciful to die for all of us.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
Who's reason?
Alceste
Vagabond
At least three of them, maybe more, explicitly state that the definitive virginity-proving characteristic of the "cloth", "bed sheet", "blanket", or "garment" is that it is bloody.
The ONLY valid proof of innocence that verse indicates is the existence of this bloody cloth. Without that single item of "proof", it explicitly states that the girl is to be stoned to death on the steps of her father's house.
I honestly don't get why you can't come to terms with the meaning of this passage. It's absolutely crystal clear, as is the later passage where Jesus interferes with just such an honour killing by calling on a "sinless" person to cast the first stone, thereby allowing the angry mob to convict themselves by their own conscience, but then doesn't stone her to death himself, contradicting both what you call "God's law" and his own advice to those that would carry out what you believe to be "God's law".
Vadergirl123
Active Member
No they're not, although when Jesus died he took our sins upon himself. God isn't responsible for what we do. We chose how we want to live our lives. I chose wether I want to live for him or not/whether I want to believe in him or not. When I decide to go to a football game, drink, read a book. It's my choice. He created us but he doesn't control us. It's almost like I was born form my parents but they don't control me. You see what I'm saying.
Alceste
Vagabond
"Reason" is a method. People either have the ability to do it or they don't, although many of those who don't can be taught. The ethical positions society should embrace are those which come from people with a proven ability to practice the art of reason.
Those who lack the capacity to reason for themselves should take their cues from the field of philosophy, which is largely composed of people who can reason doing their utmost to figure out the answers to questions of morality and ethics.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
They don't state"the definitive virginity proof is-" those are your words, they say the tokens of virginity.
No it says if, "no proof can be found" It doesn't say if "the tokens can't be found."
Jesus DOESN'T interfere. The people came to him, and he only replies when tey keep questioning him. He gives them the choice too, but none of them are sinless so they don't, and then he has mercy on the girl. Also Jesus is God, so he can do whatever he wants with the law.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
Who developed this method? Or how did it start?
Jacksnyte
Reverend
A good example of how ex-christians see the fundamentalist stance:
Landover Baptist | Where the Worthwhile Worship. Unsaved Unwelcome
Landover Baptist | Where the Worthwhile Worship. Unsaved Unwelcome
Alceste
Vagabond
The NT was written in Greek.
I would have thought they'd cover that fact at some point at your church if the entire thing is supposed to be the inspired word of God.
You claimed god prohibits "murder" but not "killing". If it's the Bible you're going by, you're simply incorrect.
Alceste
Vagabond
I literally JUST SHOWED YOU a dozen translations that translate the Hebrew term as "bloody sheet" or "blood-stained garment" instead of "token of virginity". Like, not even five posts ago!
What on earth is going on in your head?
But if it's his law, why wouldn't he uphold it? Especially if he wanted US to uphold it? Wouldn't it make sense to set an example? You'd think a god who thought women should be murdered for promiscuity would be eager to carry out the sentence himself. What are his followers to think when he creates a law that says "You must brutally murder women for merely being accused of promiscuity", then when they catch a woman in the act and bring her to him for justice, says "Meh, never mind, doesn't matter".
Vadergirl123
Active Member
The greek word is phoneuo which means to be a murderer. My church doesn't teach that the N.T is written Hebrew.
No, I'm not both instances are refering to murder not killing.
Last edited:
Vadergirl123
Active Member
My head's fine, and they said "evidence or proof" not "definitive token" meaning the sheet wasn'tthe only thing to prove it.
God did set an example. Israel was the example and Christ came to die for our sins and to show us that we no longer have to be under the law. Jesus didn't say, "it didn't matter." He told the women to leave and to no longer live a life of sin. Also those men weren't interested in "justice" they just wanted to trip Jesus up, so they could accuse him.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
It's a method of processing sensory information that is inherent in human psychology. If you believe we were created, then your creator God would have developed this method by giving humans enough intelligence to methodically determine what is or is not true.
If you believe in evolution, reason is what you would call an emergent property of our massive brains, with an enormous evolutionary / survival advantage. Without reason, we would have no medicine, no technology, no understanding of our origins or our universe, we could not have traveled to the moon, or adapted to survival in every corner of our planet. We would be defenseless against natural disasters, predators and climatic cycles. All of these things depend on our being able to figure out what is true, based on our observation of the world around us and the desire to fashion a coherent explanation supported by the evidence.
You could even say that religion is an effort to make sense of the world around us based on our ability to reason, but it has gone astray - irretrievably down the garden path of "false attribution of cause." Religion, IOW, is a failed effort to practice the art of reason. For moral guidance, we should look to those who either have not failed or are still trying.