Ex Christians

[waitasec]

This is true too.

When I mentioned avoiding the discussion of it, I was
thinking of a couple instances in the past, where I brought
some grief upon my own head due to mentioning activities
that met with the disapproval of others. In one instance, a
vegetarian disapproved of my eating meat, and in other
instance, a teetotaller objected to my drinking wine. Both
who objected to my consumption of meat and wine did so
based on their religious beliefs, and were unreceptive to my
views in spite of me using their own religion's teachings to
explain why those activities might not be as wrong as they
believed. It got a little messy. Fortunately, both incidents
took place online, so no one was harmed in the making of
those controversies, lol!

I agree that enabling what has been referred to in extreme
cases as "weaker brother syndrome" doesn't help the weaker
become stronger. It seems that a strong faith would be able
to thrive in just about any environment, unfazed by
whatever it is one has decided is taboo. So it's good to
discuss those things. But personally, if I reach the point
where I feel like I'm being ground to pieces over something,
that's when I decide to back off and just keep it to myself,
at least with that particular party. If I spend too much of my
freedom defending it against its critics, I'll never have a
chance to just enjoy it, lol!


-

no one needs to apologize for their convictions.

 

[waitasec]

No, it was based on the lack of proof(at leats that's what the Bible says) it doesn't specifically say she was killed based on the fact that she didn't bleed.

the proof was the lack of blood.

 

[waitasec]

Because I like knowing as much as I can about who I'm in a relationship with. Eevn though I know I can't know everything.

Yes haha and I've already explained why I disagree.[/QUOTE]

no you haven't. you just said you saw "a yellow car".
that doesn't explain a thing

 

[Vadergirl123]

Deuteronomy 22. One of the laws pertaining ti virginity? oy vey.
Can anyone actually say whether anyone had actually been stoned for not being a virgin? Can anyone actually say that anyone had ever been stoned based on Torah laws?

Nope and nope, everyon'e assuming some girl must've been unfairly killed.

Further, do you guys even know what it takes to convict someone of the crime you are accusing this hypothetical girl of?

The passage says if the girl had no proof of virginity then she'd be stoned.

 

[waitasec]

So what? I really don't see an issue with that. It's not like he doesn't get punished if he's wrong.

what you so conveniently leave out in this entire discussion is that this test is contingent upon this:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her , dislikes her

he potentially has a way out...
what if she doesn't like him? oh that's right, she doesn't have a say in the matter as she is treated like chattel.

You can't know what the method was completely like. We weren't there remember. I'm sure it was very fool proof, and no girl was killed that was innocent.

the method was the absence of blood.

 

[Rakhel]

i don't care if anyone was or wasn't. the fact of the matter is...the test ordained by god to prove a girls virginity was if she bled or not.

god should know more about the human anatomy, shouldn't he?

IF you don't care, why are you arguing the point?

 

[waitasec]

The passage says if the girl had no proof of virginity then she'd be stoned.

and how does a virgin prove she is?

 

[waitasec]

IF you don't care, why are you arguing the point?

i care about the point that i'm making...

this was a man made test justified by the guise of gods authority

 

[Alceste]

Deuteronomy 22. One of the laws pertaining ti virginity? oy vey.
Can anyone actually say whether anyone had actually been stoned for not being a virgin? Can anyone actually say that anyone had ever been stoned based on Torah laws?

Further, do you guys even know what it takes to convict someone of the crime you are accusing this hypothetical girl of?

We're debating this subject as if the Bible were literally true, the only possible source of morality, written by God and perfect in every detail. Those are Vadergirl's assertions. I am sympathetic to the Jewish people who have come in to try to show the OT is not a faithful or complete representation of Jewish culture at the time, and I totally agree with you.

On the other hand, if we are to establish whether the God of the Bible is "moral" based on what it says about God IN the Bible, which God is supposed to have written himself, we do need to stick to what it says, which is this:

1. Man accuses wife of not being a virgin.
2. Parents produce a bloody sheet from the wedding night. (Or don't).
3.a) If they have a bloody sheet, then the beating of the man and payout for the slander.
3.b) If they haven't got a bloody sheet, then the slaughter of the woman on the steps of her father's house.

Pretty straightforward. If it's NOT the whole story, then there is a big problem with the assertion that the Bible is god's autobiography, since it portrays him in such an unflattering light.

 

[waitasec]

As to why it's okay for God to create laws and punishments. It's becasue he's nothing like us, and so superior to human beings.

so you are not even remotely curious as to why god would prefer virgins to marry men vs. non virgins?

this is awfully suspicious to me...and would confirm the misogynistic society "god" was condoning...but really, lets be realistic about it shall we? it was the misogynistic ideals that perpetuated this crap in order to justify it's disgusting intentions.

 

[Me Myself]

That is completely your opinion(as you can't prove they were), and I doubt there were any girls killed unfairly.(I also can't prove that btw)

How is it my opinion?

Which was the punishment for unvirgin girls who were married?

What was the test?

Was the test infalible?

Depending on the answers to this questions, it doesn´t become my opinion but the obvious trail of events.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think it's wrong for God to have a girl killed for breaking the law(when she knows is the punishment). Obviously sex was worth the risk to her.

Why do you think she had sex? The only test was seeing if she bleed or not when had sex, and that is NOT an infalible test.

This means that a lot of women that didn´t bleed were killed because God made a falible test.

 

[Alceste]

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.

If she's not being tortured to death because her parents failed to produce a bloody sheet, why does the Bible say the bloody sheet is the only evidence needed to establish her guilt or innocence?

Is the Bible wrong?

Fun fact: Did you know that even a modern doctor can not say with absolute certainty whether or not a girl has ever had sexual intercourse?

 

[waitasec]

What??? That doesn't mean God's thinking for me. God doesn't decide what I wear, eat, say, do,live.

fine. then god talks for you..or the other way around since....

Uh uh..I said no one can "understand him completely" I would've followed that law had I been an Israelite yes.

so then why try if no one can understand him completely...
killing someone on the basis of not being a virgin, as fallible as the method was, is sure putting a lot of weight on the incomplete understanding of god, don't you think?

 

[Me Myself]

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.

But the bible says that if she doesn´t bleed then she most be stoned to death.

That is what the bible says because it says if she doesnt bleed she must have had sex (which is not true BTW)

So the incorrect test of the bible made a lot of women die unjustly.

 

[Alceste]

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.


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.

You do in fact use God to justify the theoretical murder of a bride if she fails to pass a notoriously unreliable virginity test. Since I, personally, didn't bleed on my first time, I can only assume you would have been comfortable with my execution despite my innocence, and your only excuse is that you think God wants it that way. Maybe you'd have been the first to start throwing stones! That's a frankly terrifying picture of your "Biblical morality".

I am of course gleaning all this from your own posts. What else would I be using? Where have you EVER indicated a shred of doubt that the "bloody sheet" might actually be an unfair test, and that execution would be a drastic and uncalled for response for failing to produce one?

I'll save you the trouble of looking - not once.

 

[Me Myself]

She cant say that. If the bible says it is the test to use then she cannot refute it, or else she would be refuting "the infalible word of God"

Which in this case made a completely falible virginity test that would have get you killed if you had lived in that time, even if you complied with the law.

 

[waitasec]

She cant say that. If the bible says it is the test to use then she cannot refute it, or else she would be refuting "the infalible word of God"

Which in this case made a completely falible virginity test that would have get you killed if you had lived in that time, even if you complied with the law.

instead of refuting it she claims there MUST be another test...not realizing that the "infallible" word of god didn't mention the other test...
wow.

 

[Alceste]

She cant say that. If the bible says it is the test to use then she cannot refute it, or else she would be refuting "the infalible word of God"

Which in this case made a completely falible virginity test that would have get you killed if you had lived in that time, even if you complied with the law.

Women are still murdered by their families on suspicion of sexual impropriety. I guess that's OK with Vadergirl, since their families' Gods require it of them.

 

[Me Myself]

instead of refuting it she claims there MUST be another test...not realizing that the "infallible" word of god didn't mention the other test...
wow.

It´s nice to know the infalible word of God missed something this important!

If that is infalible, I am not impressed o.o