Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

Behold! We have finally discovered the "other method" of establishing virginity that Vadergirl was insisting on all along!
Well, Vadergirl, now that you know what it was, how reliable do you think it was?

I thought you said you looked for facts. Did you even research what Rakhel said or did you just take his word for it?
As to this method why should I think it was the one God used for a girl who didn't bleed the first time?

 

[Vadergirl123]

The rabbi would take two women, one a known virgin and the other not. He would place them on top of barrels of wine, then sniff their breath.
The non-virgin's breath, because of the missing hymen(I truly don't know what they were thinking), would, by his logic, smell like wine. While the virgin's breath, because of the intact hymen, would not.

Then he would take the accused and place her on a barrel of wine and sniff her breath.

This test is, supposedly, attributed to Raban Gamliel, one of our greatest sages.

Personally, I think the man was drunk himself. Either that or very horny. If not both.

It sounds..uh...interesting(to say the least) Was this one the Israelites used though? I mean Rabbi Gamliel didn't live around Moses's time?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I am sure you are missing the point and I am beginning to suspect you are deliberately missing the point.

Also a couple people have their own opinions on what "the point" of this passage is.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I would love to test it out. It would make a heck of a mythbusters episode.

Hahaha we should send it in, it would definitely be interesting.

 

[Vadergirl123]

How do you guys spend, like, 50 pages going around in circles?

They like to ask the same questions over and over, and I keep answering them haha.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I'm glad to know that screwing around before marriage is worthy of death.

God obviously doesn't view sex before marriage as simply, "screwing around."

 

[Vadergirl123]

So which old testament laws actually apply today, and which don't? Did god tell the Israelites that these laws only apply to them? Does it say this in the Bible? Why is this law no longer valid, while other old testament laws aren't?

I beleive he told them that, you know since they were his people. These laws didn't apply to the Canaanites or other groups at the time. I could look all of them up(but I can't tell you when I'd have the answers). Just read the N.T

 

[Vadergirl123]

so if she doesn't bleed and she was a virgin, what then...check her breath?

No, we don't even know if the Israelites at the time of Moses used this method.

 

[Vadergirl123]

you don't think "god" was contributing to a misogynistic society with this fallible understanding of a women's anatomy?

Waitasec, you don't know God had a fallible understanding of a women's anatomy. He's the one who created women you know, logically that would mean he knows EVERYTHING about them, and therefore he would've understood that some might not bleed on their first time, which would mean something would've been done for those girls and the inoccent wouldn't have died. You can keep arguing about this, "fallible method" you've created, but you can't honestly say it was fallible since you don't know if any women were unjustly killed, which they weren't.

 

[Vadergirl123]

i am not speculating i know i didn't bleed my 1st time. so if i were born at a different time and place and my new husband hated me after we consummated the marriage i would be suspect of being a whore because i didn't bleed, right?

Suspected probably, but God wouldn't have allowed you to be unjustly killed.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Wait, you can speculate that there was another method that God simply chose not to mention in the book of laws when there is absolutely no evidence of this?

Yes

But we cannot speculate that fallible humans would sometimes fail when using a fallible system for proving virginity?

What are you talking about? I never said you couldn't speculate about anything.

 

[Vadergirl123]

You and me both, sister. Vadergirl, with her "superior" morals, would be ready and waiting to murder us. If the lack of blood didn't do the trick, the fact that I'm currently half drunk certainly would.

Really Alceste, I've said countless times that I wouldn't kill anyone who's inoccent. Why do you keep insisting I would. It's a false statement.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Waitasec, you don't know God had a fallible understanding of a women's anatomy. He's the one who created women you know, logically that would mean he knows EVERYTHING about them, and therefore he would've understood that some might not bleed on their first time, which would mean something would've been done for those girls and the inoccent wouldn't have died. You can keep arguing about this, "fallible method" you've created, but you can't honestly say it was fallible since you don't know if any women were unjustly killed, which they weren't.

Begging the question

You really simply do not grasp that you are assuming that God would not allow an innocent woman to die, while simultaneously being able to find, only, a totally fallible system present in the holy texts; and being forced to presume without any evidence whatsoever that 'some other better method' was also used, even though this other method is not mentioned anywhere in the texts where his followers specifically WENT to FIND SUCH METHODS.

It is amazing, and appalling, to watch the lengths to which you will go to refuse to recognize when you are wrong.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Hell IS the force. He IS forcing you do to do what he wants; or you GO TO HELL.

No he's not you can just chose him or hell(it's the punishment we have because we're sinners).

It is a one-sided. It's basically the definition of one-sided.

I'd disagree, but okay

'Superior' in what sense? Not in morals, certainly.

How are your morals better than God's?

Again, if a human dictator threatened torture for as long as a person could be kept alive, for not obeying him, how is that any different from God threatening you with Hell for not following him?

God loves us and a human dictator usually doesn't. Also God's not a human, and
your analgoy isn't really reality. Hell is the punishment for our sin. God didn't just take over our lives and say, "worship me or burn." Which is what a dictator does. We were already separated from him and he provided us with the option of going to heaven

Yes he did. Sin is nothing natural,

Yes it is, which feels more natural getting revenge on someone who wrongs you or turning the other cheek?

nor is it a natural consequence for an entire being's biology to change simply for eating a single fruit.

Yes it is the consequence, according to the Bible anyway.

These were magical occurrences directly performed by God, as a result of his ire.

Why do you say that.

Ah, that old Christian bugaboo 'choice'.
It's not my choice to be made capable of sin. God did that.

Bugaboo? haha okay so then you don't chose to lie or steal, you feel a spirit of God come into you and make you do those things?
By the way it's quite refeshing to talk to you after having the 50+ posts about virginity hahaha

 

[mycorrhiza]

No he's not you can just chose him or hell(it's the punishment we have because we're sinners).

That is still forcing. A dictator could say the same thing: "follow me or get tortured". Though, I don't believe that the eternal torture hell has any real biblical and historical evidence backing it up, so it's more like "follow me and get rewarded, and if not then no reward".

Yes it is, which feels more natural getting revenge on someone who wrongs you or turning the other cheek?

To me, turning the other cheek. Pacifist beliefs have developed in many traditions separated from Christianity as they are beneficial to society and the individuals that inhabit it. Personal revenge will break society apart, which is bad for the continuation of the human species and thus it goes against the natural instinct of survival.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No he's not you can just chose him or hell(it's the punishment we have because we're sinners).

Yes, it is. You're wrong.

How are your morals better than God's?

By this example alone my morals are better than God's.

God loves us and a human dictator usually doesn't.

Except by the proof of his actions, he does not love us.

Also God's not a human, and
your analgoy isn't really reality.

Oh, don't start trying to work reality into this, now, as if that's some kind of excuse which supports your baseless assertions.

Hell is the punishment for our sin. God didn't just take over our lives and say, "worship me or burn."

That's exactly what he says

Which is what a dictator does. We were already separated from him and he provided us with the option of going to heaven

Or burning alive for eternity

Yes it is, which feels more natural getting revenge on someone who wrongs you or turning the other cheek?

No, the concept of sin itself is not natural; it does not follow any natural laws, or physics. There is no substance or compound which imitates such an effect; It's an arbitrary decision by God done by magic. You did not understand the statement.

Yes it is the consequence, according to the Bible anyway.

You didn't understand the statement, again

Why do you say that.

Because a single action of eating a magical fruit changed Adam and Eve's entire biology and [if taken as if its literal] their spiritual 'biology' as well. Nowhere in reality do we see such a thing; it is against physics. It is a magical event, directed only by God, and nothing more.

Bugaboo? haha okay so then you don't chose to lie or steal, you feel a spirit of God come into you and make you do those things?

No, its a bugaboo because the concept of choice never comes out except to immediately infer [from the Christian bringing it up, I mean] that the choice being talked about was the wrong choice, and teh subsequent negative events occurring are 'just deserts'.

By the way it's quite refeshing to talk to you after having the 50+ posts about virginity hahaha

If you understood how incredibly immoral [and other such-like words I'll refrain from posting], your responses make you appear while talking to me, I don't think you'd say that.

 

[Vadergirl123]

i leave for 3 or 4 days...
something like 200 new posts..

Yeah this thread goes fast hahaa

so my question, did Vadergirl ever find any verses in the Christian Bible condemning suicide or calling it "self-murder"?

I'm sorry, and I did find out something interesting about it. There's several instances of suicide in the Bible and anyway I figured I could look at some of those verses and see if the original greek/hebrew word used for kill was related to murder.
Well most of the passages I looked up didn't use the word kill(they just said the person killing themselves died), but when we come to Acts 16 the text says the Philipian Jailer woudl've, "killed himself." Anyway the original greek word for this was anaiero(I think I spelled that right) which means at the root to destroy violently(or to kill/murder) and then I looked up other times this word was used and it ws when the men were planning to murder Paul(in acts 9 I think?)
Now I know this isn't a verse that comes out and says suicide is self-murder, but the text seems to think so, since there's other words that can be used for kill(I had some stuff written down. I did this research a few days ago, but I lost the paper )

 

[Hope]

subjective morals cannot be compared to empirical evidence.

So subjective morality does not exist?

no there are not. to suggest such a thing you would need to prove it.
so prove it.

Do you believe there is such thing as right and wrong?

prove it. what is the absolute moral code concerning...birth control,
same sex marriage, stem cell research, euthanasia?

You are talking specifics. If you want an absolute moral code, "you shall not murder" is a good one that covers some of those.

 

[fantome profane]

You are talking specifics. If you want an absolute moral code, "you shall not murder" is a good one that covers some of those.

But even this has problems. What one person calls murder another calls a justified killing in the name of "God".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As a Christian, of course I depend on the Bible for absolute morals. I won't deny that.

However, my main point was to refute waitasec's argument of relativistic morality. Certainly every culture, denomination, etc., has its own preferences ("preferences" being the key word) in regards to certain issues, but if it's true everyone is absolutely right in their morals (according to waitasec), then, actually no one is right. The sky is blue whether I want it to be blue, or feel like it should be blue....the sky is absolutely, objectively blue. Likewise, there are absolute, objective morals as well, that are not dependent on what I want or feel or wish. Certain preferences over details in specific moral instances may change from culture to culture, but absolute, fundamental morality does not change.

Kind of like Plato's "allegory of the cave"----there is perception, and there is reality. The former changes, the latter does not. Just because we perceive something to be moral or immoral does not change the actuality of it being so. Hope this clarifies my point somewhat.

By that logic, any culture that is Biblically based is subjective and as wrong as everybody else.

I prefer empirical evidence to present what is True across all cultures, you know, like peer reviewed biological, geological, astronomical, medicinal, agricultural scientific theory, and to read the Bible as a narrative and mythic poetry to reveal humanity's attempt to understand the Cosmos.

Saying the Bible is the source for absolute morals requires a LOT of mental gymnastics to justify killing someone by stoning them throw by throw by a community of other human beings...and results in threads like this that sickens most people to "absolute" morals like that.

Killing someone for promiscuity. It's abhorrent. It's my opinion. Saying it's acceptable is someone else's opinion. What I DON'T do is mistake my morals for God's.