Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

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.

That's a way WE know of, Of course God knows that(since he created the human body) and I don't know how the people would've known for sure, but I do know that God wouldn't have allowed an inoccent girl to die.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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

Yes I redid what I pisted and said it's not a sure-proof way. And again God woudln't have allowed an inoccent girl to die.

or he was proven right under false pretense

No he wasn't. Nowhere does the Bible say he was.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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.

God wouldn't have allowed any inoccent deaths. Again he didn't create the law to kill inoccents, it was to determine what the punishment was for a girl being, "promiscuous in her father's house."

 

[mycorrhiza]

I'm not looking at gnostic mythology though.

I just meant that being powerful in no way indicates being more capable of deciding what's best for other people.

 

[Vadergirl123]

The system the bible used is falible.

Actually we don't even really know what that system was we just know the parents offered proof of virginity. And we're given an example of some parents giving a cloth.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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.

Why don't you think God wants what's best for us?

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.

And again it's a good thing God knows more about human anatomy then doctors do.

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.

Okay

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.

Why is it wrong? Is it because your opinion says it is?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I was raised a catholic went to catechism. At the age of 11 I went to an evangelical church and I got "saved". I had a very powerful experience (wont go into it now). I had a very hard life as a child. I was always sick. It was my relationship with Christ that helped me with living. Grow up and went to Bible College. To make a long story short. I found out that in general the evangelical Theologians were very disingenuous and made many straw man arguments against "liberal Theologians". I reproached the Bible and I could no longer believe what I was taught. It was all lies. This even made me doubt my relationship with Christ. I quit the Church and became an existential agnostic. Went to school worked in a state Mental Hospital. Became more and more depressed about the human condition. Began reading about all the worlds religions. Found a type of Hinduism that fit me. Found a Swami who could answer all my questions about Christ, God and life. (The teachers in Bible collage could not) Converted to Hinduism. This is the story in a nut shell.

Very interesting, that's too bad your teachers couldn't answer your questions. What were a few of them. Could you talk about the powerful experience you had?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Are you saying that the Israelites never made any mistakes?

Uh no..I said, "God never made any mistakes."

 

[Vadergirl123]

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

Hahaha and you like thinking the Bible is fallibe and that God is as well.

 

[mycorrhiza]

God wouldn't have allowed any inoccent deaths. Again he didn't create the law to kill inoccents, it was to determine what the punishment was for a girl being, "promiscuous in her father's house."

Even if not a single innocent person was killed, is it really a good law? Is death an appropriate punishment for promiscuity or homosexuality? The people that the law was given to rejected capital punishment quite early. Were they bad for not following the punishments given by God or were they good for using human morals to see that killing people is wrong? The laws and how they've been applied clearly reflect the historical context, rather than a continuous unchanging tradition.

To me, the Bible is a human perception of God, if God exists. That's why the laws change. If one of God's characteristics is never changing, then humanity must have changed. Even Jesus, who was supposedly God himself, knew that killing was wrong. He knew that the earlier punishments given by God were wrong. So why would God have given out punishments that God himself knew were wrong?

If God is unimaginably great, beyond human comprehension, how could He ever fit in a single book? If God exists, I believe that He transcends the scripture about Him.

 

[Vadergirl123]

pay attention to what you are saying
does that make sense to you?
it makes sense in a misogynistic society wouldn't you say?

I'm sorry I should've been more specific, his will(in the entire context of the passage) was for a girl who had been having promiscuous relationships to be killed.)

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?

As I've said many times I don't know what it was or why it wasn't mentioned. When I get to heaven I'll ask God for you okay...

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

Yes.

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...?

I've said countles times that I can't prove there was another method and I'm assuming that there was something God did for girls who didn't bleed the first time. Notice though that I admit I'm just assuming. I'm not saying it's a fact another method was used.

 

[Vadergirl123]

how come? and why did god fail to mention it in his infallible book.

I think there's something he did for girl's who didn't bleed the first time. Again I don't know why God didn't mention it( I'm not going torecieve some spiritual revelation on this, so you don't need to keep asking me the same question when I've said I don't know)

seems to me if there was an infallible method that would be included in his infallible word...don't you think?

No, but you can think whatever you want.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Now who is making things up?
The "infalible" book says that the method was the one about the bleeding.

No it says proof was offered and then that the parents offered a cloth.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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

What idea am I having a relationship with? God isn't an idea. There are people who have ideas about God though.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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?

Nope and the Bible just says proof's offered. And it gives an example of parents bringing a cloth.

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?

Yes I do, and God would know since he created the human body, so again there's no reason to think any inoccent women was killed.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ideas are all you have about God, too.

 

[Vadergirl123]

If there was a better method, why didn't Good choose to include it in his instructions on how to deal with accusations of premarital sex?

I'm not talking about a "better method" I'm talking about a possible method that was used on girl's who didn't bleed the first time. Maybe this rarely happened or all the girls did bleed the first time(again I can't be sure, I'm only speculating) However I do know that he wouldn't have allowed an inoccent girl to die

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yes I do, and God would know since he created the human body, so again there's no reason to think any inoccent women was killed.

Humans have always commited bad deeds in the name of God, so why is it unlikely that innocent women were killed? Crusades and witch burnings were both done in the name of God and both lead to the death of many innocent people.

 

[Vadergirl123]

None have. EVER.

I agree

It's a little more complicated than that.You need a full court, two witnesses who have both warned the accused before they committed the crime was committed and further, the witnesses had to have seen each other as the crime was being committed.
To make matters even more insane, if the full court(all 72 judges) come to a unanimous vote, the accused is set free.

Interesting, where do you get this from?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I am sure you are missing the point and I am beginning to suspect you are deliberately missing the point.
The question is what if the women was innocent but could not prove her innocence. In many cases it is very difficult or impossible for innocent people to prove their innocence.

I honestly think I've adressed every point in this passage(I'm begining to sound like a recording for answering the same questions over and over).God wouldn't have allowed her to die, because that would've been an unjust application of the law.