Ex Christians

[Me Myself]

If we look at the test he made to see if the girls were virgin, I´d say he definetely doesn´t know everything about us. That, or he is a prankster with human lifes. Specially women´s lifes.

 

[Vadergirl123]

How do you prove you're a virgin, vadergirl?

If your hymen's intact is one way, but it's not sure-proof.

Also, why does the accuser need no proof, when such stakes are on the line? All he needs to do is accuse, and this poor girl will be subject to an inquiry that, if she cannot clear her name, will result in her death. Guess God didn't really think that one through, huh?

Of course he thought it through the guy could accuse yes, but if he was proven wrong he had to pay up.

 

[Me Myself]

If your hymen's intact.

If this is the test God asked, then he obviously wasn´t aware that the hymen can be broken even if the girl had no sex at all in her life.

He was either ignorant or malicious or indiferent towards the punishment he put on girls for not having it intact while being inocent of his capricious law.

Of course he thought it through the guy could accuse yes, but if he was proven wrong he had to pay up.

Pay as in money??? Oh yes, surely God had such a high appreciation for women back then.

 

[waitasec]

If your hymen's intact.

bzzzt wrong!!!
no one knows how...


i didn't bleed the 1st time.

Of course he thought it through the guy could accuse yes, but if he was proven wrong he had to pay up.

or he was proven right under false pretense

 

[Vadergirl123]

The question wasn't what happens to him if he is wrong. The question was "Why is the virginity of males a non-issue?"

I don't know

By the way, what does happen to a guy if he was wrong? Does he get stoned to death? I mean, the stakes should be equal, don't you think?

No, he pays money. Sure I guess he could also have gotten stoned to death for accusing someone.

Oh come on! In our current civilization, innocent people are executed and that's with current investigative skills, etc. People make mistakes all the time. It is quite naiive to believe that somehow the Israelites were immune to such mistakes.

Very true, but God doesn't make mistakes, and he was the one in charge of the Israelites.

But all this is really besides the point. Do you really think that being stoned to death is an appropriate punishment for having sex before you are married?

Read all my previous posts

 

[Vadergirl123]

Again with the wilful misunderstanding. She is being murdered because she could not prove she didn't do wrong.

No she's being killed for having sex. You just like thinking she had no way to proove she was inoccent.

If you want to believe that God ordered the death penalty be dealt out via an inaccurate process

How do you know what process God used? You weren't there. You CAN'T know, you can only make assumptions.

 

[Me Myself]

Very true, but God doesn't make mistakes

His system to determine virginity is either mistaken or purposefully wrong, because it simply doesn´t have 100% vaildity and subscribing to it inevitably would have caused inocents death.

So you choose, deliberately wrong or mistaken.

 

[Me Myself]

No she's being killed for having sex. You just like thinking she had no way to proove she was inoccent.


How do you know what process God used? You weren't there. You CAN'T know, you can only make assumptions.

We are using the bible actually. We are talking abut the system the bible uses, given that the bible is supposedly the infalible word of God.

The system the bible used is falible.

Wake up.

 

[Falvlun]

Very true, however God's the one who created us and knows what's best fo us(I've said this like 15times in this thread)

You've also claimed that he isn't omnibenevolent.

As others have noted merely being the creator doesn't mean that God a) knows what is best for us or b) wants what's best for us.

Okay, but as I said above since he created us and this planet, I believe that gives him every right to do what he wants.

Vadergirl, if people didn't have a good reason to not be a Christian, you are giving them plenty of great reasons now.

If your hymen's intact.

I didn't bleed my first time. As has been noted multiple times, even current doctors cannot claim with certainty whether someone is a virgin or not.

Of course he thought it through the guy could accuse yes, but if he was proven wrong he had to pay up.

You ignored the pertinent part. The payment is not equivalent-- the stakes are not the same. There is not much of a deterrent to accusing the girl if you are not absolutely sure.

The whole thing is sick, in my opinion, regardless. Nobody should be stoned to death simply for having premarital sex. Period. It is wrong today and it was wrong back then too.

 

[Falvlun]

Very true, but God doesn't make mistakes, and he was the one in charge of the Israelites.

Are you saying that the Israelites never made any mistakes? Your Biblical lore must be rather fuzzy. They made mistakes all the time. Look at the golden calf for exhibit A.

 

[waitasec]

You just like thinking she had no way to proove she was inoccent.

you just like thinking the god of the bible is infallible....
against any and all rationality that the god of the bible is fallible.

 

[Vadergirl123]

no because you say the the bible tells us what gods will is, don't you?

Indeed, However God's will was for a girl who wasn't a virgin to be killed. His will wasn't that a girl who couldn't bleed be killed.

therefore, in order for you to prove that it is gods will that a girl is to be justifiably murdered for not being a virgin, then the method of which god ordains to prove her virginity has to be fool proofundeniable empirical proof that she is not a virgin..., since we are talking about a persons life here... the lack of evidence of blood is not that method.

Again you don't even know what this method was. You weren't there(and neither was I) you're just assuming it was fallible. You can't prove it.

thereforeare you speculating. in fact, what you are saying here is that he failed incorporate the "other method" as a back up to make sure the lack of blood wasn't the only method to determine she wasn't a virgin, since we are talking about a persons life here.

Yes I am, I admitted I was guessin. He didn't fail to mention it. He just chose not to and I've told you I don't know why.

the method specified in the bible is fallible. period.

You never even observed the method, so you can't know it was fallible.

 

[Vadergirl123]

the proof was the lack of blood.

Yes that's one method that was used, but there must've been another as well.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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

You didn't understand my analogy?(although it wasn't really meant to show why I believe what I believe.) So what are you asking me exactly?

 

[waitasec]

Indeed, However God's will was for a girl who wasn't a virgin to be killed. His will wasn't that a girl who couldn't bleed be killed.

pay attention to what you are saying

God's will was for a girl who wasn't a virgin to be killed

does that make sense to you?
it makes sense in a misogynistic society wouldn't you say?

Again you don't even know what this method was. You weren't there(and neither was I) you're just assuming it was fallible. You can't prove it.

you're the one who brought up the alternate method didn't you...so what was it? and why wasn't it mentioned in the infallible bible?

Yes I am, I admitted I was guessin. He didn't fail to mention it. He just chose not to and I've told you I don't know why.

how do you know he chose not to...because it's not there? therefore leaving room for error? excellent logic.

You never even observed the method, so you can't know it was fallible.

again you are the one who claims there must be another method...not i.
so what was it, did you observe it? if not then why do you claim there was an alternate method...?

 

[waitasec]

Yes that's one method that was used, but there must've been another as well.

how come? and why did god fail to mention it in his infallible book.
seems to me if there was an infallible method that would be included in his infallible word...don't you think?

 

[Me Myself]

Yes that's one method that was used, but there must've been another as well.

Now who is making things up?

The "infalible" book says that the method was the one about the bleeding.

 

[waitasec]

You didn't understand my analogy?(although it wasn't really meant to show why I believe what I believe.) So what are you asking me exactly?

you said...

Because I like knowing as much as I can about who I'm in a relationship with.

how do you know you are supposed to have a relationship with an idea?

 

[Alceste]

If your hymen's intact is one way, but it's not sure-proof.

Of course he thought it through the guy could accuse yes, but if he was proven wrong he had to pay up.

How could a girl's hymen be intact AFTER her marriage is consummated? That's when this"trial" is supposed to be taking place. The guy gets to sex her up before he claims she's not a virgin and had her slaughtered for being unable to prove him wrong. All it costs him is a few shekels and a beating if her parents had the foresight to stash a bloody sheet away "just in case". (FYI, ruptured hymens aren't the only thing on earth that bleeds.)

 

[Alceste]

No she's being killed for having sex. You just like thinking she had no way to proove she was inoccent.


How do you know what process God used? You weren't there. You CAN'T know, you can only make assumptions.

Are you serious? How do I know what the test in the Bible was? Because I read it in the Bible, for Pete's sake. Are you saying the Bible is incomplete, wrong, misleading, or otherwise false?

I don't "like thinking" there is no test that can conclusively prove whether a woman had had sex. I am AWARE OF THE FACT that there is no way to prove whether or not a woman had had sex. Ok, so maybe I like being aware of facts. Don't you?