Ex Christians

[waitasec]

I think so, at least in the context of that verse, and being
that it's in the Christian bible specifically.

In a more general sense, it could be along the lines of "If
you know something you do bugs the other guy, don't rub
the fact that you do it in his face". At that point it's less of
a Christian Morality issue and more just good manners, I
suppose.

If there's a particular activity that I believe is just fine to
do, it would be inconsiderate of me to go on and on about
having done it in the presence of someone who I know for a
fact disapproves of that activity. It would be just tacky to do
on my part. It would also give the offended party the
opportunity to criticize that activity, something that Romans
14:16 says to avoid: "Do not allow what you consider good
to be spoken of as evil." The easiest way to avoid that is
probably to just not discuss or do it within range of those
one knows won't sympathize.

I used to wonder if the verse meant that if anything I do
offends someone, I should just stop doing it entirely. But
that doesn't really make sense, because then I would
essentially be a prisoner of others' self-imposed
parameters.

Not only that, but, I'm persuaded that the sense of being
offended is something that's more within the control
of the one being offended, not the one being considered
offensive, based upon the offended party's chosen beliefs
about whatever it is that they find offensive.

So I think it's more of a case that one can still do those
things that one personally approves, but just not rub it in
the faces of those one knows don't like it.





-

i like the way you think

i agree.

i used to wonder that too...i never wanted to be a stumbling block to my brothers and sisters in christ.

but i would also like to point out that this way of thinking does indeed give the one who is being offended justification for being offended.

i don't think there is anything that should not be discussed. in fact anything that is taboo should be questioned as to why it is taboo. if we keep to ourselves then we, those who remain silent, are contributing to the problem of keeping things taboo.

 

[Vadergirl123]

think about the logistics here...
is there anything in the bible that mentions the hymen?

No I don't think so, does it have to be mentioned?

if the bible is laying out the justification to stone a girl to death shouldn't the bible be really specific in determining if she were a virgin, i mean we are talking about a persons life here.

Maybe it didn't mention the hymen because the cloth was the most common token of proof.

and i'm amazed at the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to you that a girl should be stoned to death for not being a virgin. so does that mean when you meet a girl who is not a virgin and she was killed for not being one, you wouldn't bat an eye?

I don't live in that time period nor am I an Israelite, so of course I wouldn't stone a girl in today's day and age. I'd have no right to do that.
As I've said earlier if I did live in that time period and was an Israelite then yes I'd go with what God's law said. However y'all are treating this girl like some victim because a guy asked for proof of her virginity. She was punished because SHE CHOSE to do wrong. She's not an innocent bystander. Also I would feel terrible for the girl, just like today I feel terrible for people who are punished. I mean I understand why they're being punished but I still feel bad for them.

 

[Vadergirl123]

You never went as far as explaining that you actually believe that a woman not bleeding the first time is credible "proof" of her guilt.

I have NEVER said that. My analogy was to show that she's being punished for not being a virgin NOT because she didn't bleed.

 

[waitasec]

No I don't think so, does it have to be mentioned?

when it concerns how one is to determine if a girl is a virgin....yes.

Maybe it didn't mention the hymen because the cloth was the most common token of proof.

and why wouldn't god make sure there was no room for error?

I don't live in that time period nor am I an Israelite, so of course I wouldn't stone a girl in today's day and age. I'd have no right to do that.
As I've said earlier if I did live in that time period and was an Israelite then yes I'd go with what God's law said. However y'all are treating this girl like some victim because a guy asked for proof of her virginity. She was punished because SHE CHOSE to do wrong. She's not an innocent bystander. Also I would feel terrible for the girl, just like today I feel terrible for people who are punished. I mean I understand why they're being punished but I still feel bad for them.

how do you know she chose to do wrong? because a fallible test god thought was perfectly acceptable didn't prove her innocence?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Actually, it can.
The way I view it is right and the way you view it is wrong, from my perspective. Just as from your perspective, the way you view it is right and the way I view it is wrong.

I'll give you the same analogy I gave waitasec. If there's a red car and from my perspective it's yellow, does that mean my perspective is the right one. No, the car is still red. Now if your perspective is that the car is red then your perspective is right. Even if I see your perspective as wrong, yours will still be right(because the car's still red not yellow)

 

[waitasec]

I have NEVER said that. My analogy was to show that she's being punished for not being a virgin NOT because she didn't bleed.

they determined her to not be a virgin based on the lack of evidence of blood

 

[Vadergirl123]

i just want to add one more thought about this.
i cannot wrap my head around an idea that would suggest that god is concerned if a girl was a virgin or not,

Okay that's fine, no one can completely understand what God's like anyway.

this is so telling that this was more of how society viewed girls...and how this particular society placed value on a girls life....if she was a virgin or not. i don't think god had anything to do with it...

You can think whatever you want to about God.

i think "god", or more likely the idea of god, was just a justification for killing someone who wasn't a virgin.

I disagree(as you know haha) but you're intitled to your own oppinion.

 

[waitasec]

Okay that's fine, no one can completely understand what God's like anyway.

and why even attempt to?

You can think whatever you want to about God.

I disagree(as you know haha) but you're intitled to your own oppinion.

thats it? you have no rebuttal, you can't explain to me why you disagree?

interesting.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Regardless of the method of proving virginity, do really honestly think it is fair that she must prove her virginity, and that her life depends on it?

I don't think it's unfair. If someone asked me to prove something I'd only think it was "unfair" if I was guilty and didn't have any proof.

It is not even that they need to prove that she had intercourse, all the husband must do is accuse her and then the burden is on her to prove her virginity. Does that seem fair to you? Does that sound like the "God"?

Yep, because if the husband was wrong he had to pay up for his mistake(literally haha) What's unfair about presenting proof to show your innconet?? Would you want court systems to release a person because they SAID they were innocent(and don't provide any proof)

 

[Vadergirl123]

I am not trying to say something harmful but why is this thread so big ?

It's not harmful haha and rabbit trails

 

[Rakhel]

I'll give you the same analogy I gave waitasec. If there's a red car and from my perspective it's yellow, does that mean my perspective is the right one. No, the car is still red. Now if your perspective is that the car is red then your perspective is right. Even if I see your perspective as wrong, yours will still be right(because the car's still red not yellow)

Not if you are colorblind

 

[waitasec]

I don't think it's unfair. If someone asked me to prove something I'd only think it was "unfair" if I was guilty and didn't have any proof.

yet the guy doesn't have to prove his virginity

man oh man...you are an interesting person.

Yep, because if the husband was wrong he had to pay up for his mistake(literally haha) What's unfair about presenting proof to show your innconet?? Would you want court systems to release a person because they SAID they were innocent(and don't provide any proof)

if we are talking about god i would expect a fool proof method of determining if a girl was a virgin or not, regardless of how absolutely ridiculous the idea is.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I'm here because it's fascinating. I've never heard a Christian defend the practice of honour killings before. And a woman, to boot.

I'm glad you think it's fascinating. I'm NOT defending honor killings. The woman wasn't punished because she brought her family dishonor. She was punished because she broke God's law.

Now I am starting to understand. As long as we (humans) can convince ourselves God is doing all our thinking for us, we are capable of justifying the most despicable acts, right up to and including murdering our own female children on a whim.

God doesn't think for me. I never claimed that(in fact I've said we make our own choices) I don't use God to justify going out and killing people. You didn't get your"understanding" from anything I've posted.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Yes. Hence the danger of thinking that absolute morals are determined by anybody, anything, or any deity besides our own minds.

Absolute morals are dangerous when we determine them by our own(human) minds.

"I killed my daughter because it was the right thing to do according to God." :sad:

The Israelites had the woman killed because she broke God's law. If you want a good society you have to have laws. God knew this and gave Israel them.

 

[waitasec]

I'm glad you think it's fascinating. I'm NOT defending honor killings. The woman wasn't punished because she brought her family dishonor. She was punished because she broke God's law.

didn't you say:

no one can completely understand what God's like anyway

and murdering a girl for not being a virgin doesn't pose a problem to you, really?

God doesn't think for me. I never claimed that(in fact I've said we make our own choices) I don't use God to justify going out and killing people. You didn't get your"understanding" from anything I've posted.

well god is thinking for you, you just said this:

The woman wasn't punished because she brought her family dishonor. She was punished because she broke God's law.

with the understanding that no once can understand god...
and you are ok with god ordaining stoning a girl to death only because she isn't a virgin...

wow...

 

[waitasec]

Absolute morals are dangerous when we determine them by our own(human) minds.

The Israelites had the woman killed because she broke God's law. If you want a good society you have to have laws. God knew this and gave Israel them.

can you explain the purpose and the importance of marrying a virgin?

 

[Rakhel]

I must of missed the verse you guys are talking about. Can someone please point me to which one it is?

 

[Shermana]

can you explain the purpose and the importance of marrying a virgin?

There is overwhelming evidence that such is a common preference among men. It evidentially appears to be widespread and natural even in "developed" societies. For whatever that reason is, the opposition to it is merely demanding this apparently natural concept be somehow regarded as wrong or useless.

Do Men Prefer Virgins? - AskMen

Stories are common.

Why Do Men Want To Marry Virgins? - Romance - Nairaland

If asked, I would bet many if not most men would prefer virgins for wives while still wanting the "dirty" girls on the side for their daliances.

In this logic, Virginity is inevitably a priority deal sealer in most cases. If given the choice between two equally attractive women, I would bet in nearly all cases the Virgin would be chosen as the permanent mate.

You may disagree with the concept of it, you may complain or find it odd, but I don't think any amount of social conditioning would ever change this seemingly natural preference.

 

[Vadergirl123]

we are talking about the obvious here.
if the person doing the harm thinks it's right, it is right for them. what you and i think about it has no bearing on what that person thinks, because they think it's right.

So whatever someone thinks is right is therefore right. Is that really what you're saying?

we happen to live in a society that has made laws against such acts because this act infringes on the rights of others, correct?

Yes, but just because a a perosn makes a law doesn't mean it's the right one

why are you talking about obvious acts that are accepted as deviant behavior with in the society you and i both live in?

What's wrong with talking about obvious acts.

what i want to know is, why would there be those who cannot empathize that would commit such an act? how can god hold them accountable if they are not capable of empathy?

Uh what? I don't understand what you're asking?

you are overlooking the ability we have to empathize.
your ideas about societies needs to be thought over.
that is exactly what the majority of christians are doing though telling people how they should live, and that is what concerns me the most.

I'm NOT forcing you or anyone else to believe what I believe. I've said countless times that you can believe whatever you want.

what saves you, saves you it doesn't save me.

How do you know that? Has God appeared to you and told you of a new way for you to get saved?

therefore you cannot expect anyone else but you to be saved by what you personally believe saves you. if you push your personal beliefs on me, then you are raping my space and my rights.

If the Bible was writen only to me, then I'd say you're absolutely right. However the Bible only talks about one way to get saved, so if you ahve a different way, it's not Biblical. Of course if you don't beleive the Bible's true then why would you feel the need to be saved anyway? Again I'm not forcing you to believe anything. You can believe whatever you want.

then forcing your personal morals over mine to make me submit to what you think is objectively moral..is an act of moral rape.

I'm not forcing my morals on you. You can have whatever morals you want.

with the understanding that my rights and my space doesn't infringe on your rights and your space, what is the problem?

I'll P.M. you what the problem is

mutual respect doesn't pose a problem if our definition of respect is:
mutually investing interest in protecting our personal space and the personal space of others.
this way there is not act of control, via raping others morals and rights and space, but an act of freedom.

Again a person can respect someone and still believe they're wrong. And I'm not raping your rights, morals, or acts of freedom.

 

[Vadergirl123]

well if it's not mentioned in the bible, which is what you say conveys the will of god, and since the only way in which the bible explains how a girl is to be validated as a virgin or not is by having the parents present the cloth to the elders of the town, then there was no other way they could determine that piece of evidence, the cloth, would satisfy the elders per god's command.

First off something doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible to mean that it happened. I don't really understand how you get your conlcusion form the premises??

they did.

You believe that we know about the cloth because Israel passed it down to us??