Ex Christians

[waitasec]

I have no idea what hadith is.

Aside from the written law, jews were given the oral law from G-D on Mt. Sinai as well.

The oral law is necessary to carry out the written law.

For example, G-D told the jews to rest/not ork on the Sabbath. But what does that mean?

Jews lived their lives by these laws.

When exactly does the sabbath start? When does it end? What is work? Is making a fire work? How about cooking?

All these little details are answered in the oral law.

So once again, the criteria is so strict to impose the death penalty to make it virtully impossible to carry out.


No circumstantial evidence

Two impeccable witnesses who had observed the person transgressing an act punishable by death.


Next, these two witnesses had to have warned the person of the capital punishment he could receive for doing the prohibited act, even if he already knew.

Finally, the person must have committed the transgression immediately after the warning. Any hesitation and the death penalty is off.

Also all 23 judges of the court have to agree.

In fact the talmudic scholoar Rabbi Akiva said that a jewish court that imposes the death sentence once in 70 years is a murderous court.

thank you, i almost forgot about that post.

i can understand the idea of being sure one is to not be falsely accused of something they did not do.
so even then, if a girl did not bleed and there were no witnesses confirming she was promiscuous, do you still think that this law is about the importance of virginity to god or to a misogynistic society?

 

[Rakhel]

I have no idea what hadith is.

Aside from the written law, jews were given the oral law from G-D on Mt. Sinai as well.

The oral law is necessary to carry out the written law.

For example, G-D told the jews to rest/not ork on the Sabbath. But what does that mean?

Jews lived their lives by these laws.

When exactly does the sabbath start? When does it end? What is work? Is making a fire work? How about cooking?

All these little details are answered in the oral law.

So once again, the criteria is so strict to impose the death penalty to make it virtully impossible to carry out.


No circumstantial evidence

Two impeccable witnesses who had observed the person transgressing an act punishable by death.


Next, these two witnesses had to have warned the person of the capital punishment he could receive for doing the prohibited act, even if he already knew.

Finally, the person must have committed the transgression immediately after the warning. Any hesitation and the death penalty is off.

Also all 23 judges of the court have to agree.

In fact the talmudic scholoar Rabbi Akiva said that a jewish court that imposes the death sentence once in 70 years is a murderous court.

No they can't all agree. If they all agree then something is wrong somewhere. A unanimous vote nullifies the verdict.

 

[CMike]

No they can't all agree. If they all agree then something is wrong somewhere. A unanimous vote nullifies the verdict.

What? All the judges have to agree to carry out the death penalty.

 

[Rakhel]

What? All the judges have to agree to carry out the death penalty.

No. you need a simple majority.

23 judges sat on the Sanhedrin trying capital cases. If there were a majority of one in favour of acquittal, the accused was acquitted; for a conviction, a majority of two was required. But if all 23 judges voted for conviction, and not even one judge voted for acquittal, the accused could not be convicted (Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, 9:1).

As well as,

But after all, a majority of two for an adverse verdict is impossible: if eleven find the man not guilty and twelve find him guilty, there is still a majority of only one;http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_17.html#17a_32 and if there are ten for not guilty and thirteen for guilty, there is a majority of three? — R. Abbahu said: [The majority of two] is possible only where [two] judges are added,http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_17.html#17a_33 and then the Mishnah agrees with the opinion of all, whilst in the major Sanhedrin, it is possible in accordance with the view of R. Judah, who holds their number to be seventy.http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_17.html#17a_34 R. Abbahu also said: Where judges are added, an evenly-balanced court may be appointed from the very outset. But is this not obvious? — You might have assumed that the one who says, 'I do not know' is regarded as an existing member, and that anything he says is to be taken into consideration. We are therefore informed that he who says, 'I do not know,' is regarded as nonexistent, and if he gives a reason [for a particular verdict] we do not listen to him.
R. Kahana said: If the Sanhedrin unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is acquitted. Why? — Because we have learned by tradition that sentence must be postponed till the morrow in hope of finding new points in favour of the defence.http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_17.html#17a_36 But this cannot be anticipated in this case.

Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 17

 

[CMike]

No. you need a simple majority.


As well as,

What are you quoting from? I didn't see it in the link.

It's late I might have missed it.

 

[Rakhel]

I am quoting from Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, 9:1 and the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 17a.

But if you would rather have a rabbi's opinion, you can get it from

OzTorah » Blog Archive » Sanhedrin & unanimous conviction – Ask the rabbi
Or here
Jewish Treats: The Great Sanhedrin
Or here
Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why the trial of Jesus never could be blamed on the Jews. Their scripture states that all found him guilty and sentenced him.
If it was a unanimous verdict, he would have been acquitted, thereby making His death someone else's problem.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

However, if we accept hell as simply the grave or destruction after death, then it is not forcing.

I must disagree here.

A neutral choice would involve no harm as retribution, and I believe the dissolution of one's soul is the same as torture, in a sense. Your personal identity and awareness are basically the most important and valuable thing you possess. Any type of destruction of this is force being used to sway your decision.

If there were some afterlife where you would go to exist, simply without God, that would perhaps be a more neutral type of choice.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I must disagree here.

A neutral choice would involve no harm as retribution, and I believe the dissolution of one's soul is the same as torture, in a sense. Your personal identity and awareness are basically the most important and valuable thing you possess. Any type of destruction of this is force being used to sway your decision.

If there were some afterlife where you would go to exist, simply without God, that would perhaps be a more neutral type of choice.

Death is natural, so I don't see why it would be a punishment. All animals die eventually. Eternal life would be a deviation from the natural, a supernatural gift. Just following nature doesn't seem like a punishment to me.

If I had the choice of eternal life with a God I don't care much for and a regular life I would choose the regular life. 80-100 years is just enough for me. I couldn't imagine living for all eternity, as it would have to be very fake emotionally for me if I were to not be bored after living for 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Death is natural, so I don't see why it would be a punishment. All animals die eventually. Eternal life would be a deviation from the natural, a supernatural gift. Just following nature doesn't seem like a punishment to me.

If I had the choice of eternal life with a God I don't care much for and a regular life I would choose the regular life. 80-100 years is just enough for me. I couldn't imagine living for all eternity, as it would have to be very fake emotionally for me if I were to not be bored after living for 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years.

I see it as a punishment since, with the creation of each life, God has introduced this self-awareness I mentioned, and then, allows the possibility of it continuing. In a sense, if this afterlife he offers is possible, that introduces the 'natural' state of that continuance; in other words, the afterlife-continuance, simply by being possible, is then in fact the natural state, and the termination of it is the 'un' natural part, an event performed as a kind of retributive termination. With the survival in an afterlife as a potential characteristic, the soul is thus naturally eternal; the grave alone being the dissolution of a perpetual motion machine, in a sense.

I would not for example, consider that an animal's death would be any different than some human's; if they contain the impetus of some kind of spirit to be alive then they too must continue somewhere [again, unless God specifically allows their dissolution, on purpose].

As for the banality of the choice, I guess that's personal preference; I could definitely live forever

 

[Vadergirl123]

That's an easy situation to remedy.

Thank you

Because you say I am?! Because you say I am?!
Look, if you cannot be bothered to follow the conversation, then posting back to you is really pointless.You've been given reasons why you are wrong. Address them or give up, I don't care which

Yes people have given me reasons why they believe God did x, or what they think of him. And I have adressed their posts. Should I believe those people over the Bible though? If so why?

the example of 'follow what I say or go to Hell', or any variation of blackmail which I've illustrated for you so far.

Right and I've said we brought sin upon ourselves.

Because God stoops to doing such things, and I never would even with his power, I am more moral.

So because you wouldn't give people an eternal punishment that makes you more moral? Why is eternal punishment for sin immoral? Because it sounds unfair to you?

Jesus pretended to die. His sacrifice was a play-act that lasted all of 2 days. The sacrifice would only have been valid if he were merely a human, and had stayed dead. That's why, when a real person does it, it means something.

You told me a couple posts ago to not make assumptions that don't have evidence. How can you possibly know Jesus didn't die?? You weren't there to see if he was really dead.

God did not die. He didn't do a damned thing.

You're just assuming he didn't.

 

[josh120775]

Thank you

Right and I've said we brought sin upon ourselves.

This has always bothered me. I was brought up to believe this with my conservative Baptist upbringing.

The story goes God created all things, but man chose to sin because man has free will. However, God knew all along that man would fall and provided a solution to bring man back, but only if man wants to. However, God didn't create sin or Hell or Satan.

Now that I've thought about this more, it doesn't make sense.

If God knows all things (including the future) and is all-powerful, then God created angels. The only Lucifer could have chosen to rebel is if God created rebellion. The only way the snake could have convinced Eve (and Adam) to "sin" would be to create sin.

If God created all things out of nothing, then He had to, by default, create sin as an option for other created beings to choose. Of course, this also would mean that the biblical God created all things so they could be destroyed, so he could kill his son, and force his own creation to repent and be destroyed, a destruction God created.

This doesn't make a lot sense to me anymore. And please don't say "God's ways aren't our ways". That's the biggest copout I've ever heard.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I was responding to your "G-d doesn't allow an innocent to die" comment.
Further it was not her that committed the crime(based on law), it was her father..

Oh okay, but I thought I said God wouldn't have allowed an inoccent women to die from that law. He wouldn't have allowed men to use his law unjustly b/c that law represented him.

But how do you go about determining who has the "wrong" understanding of the Bible and who has the "right" understanding of it?

By seeing if someone says things based on the that are consistent with God's nature or what the Bible says in general. For example if someone said God hated human beings that would be inconsistent with the way the Bible presents God and therefore there'd be no reason to believe they got that idea from the Bible. Or if someone said lying was okay b/c the Bible says it is would also be a wrong understanding b/c the Bible clearly says lying is wrong.

why wouldn't god include the "other infallible method" you so desperately want to have existed in his infallible book?

I've stopped using the word method and have said that some parents might have offered other sources of proof. And I still don't know what those possible other sources of proof were.

 

[waitasec]

Oh okay, but I thought I said God wouldn't have allowed an inoccent women to die from that law. He wouldn't have allowed men to use his law unjustly b/c that law represented him.

with all due respect, who cares what you say about what god would and would not do. the text plainly leaves room for error.

you care...that god is seen as a loving god...what evidence do you have to support this?

 

[Vadergirl123]

of course you know.

I really don't know what the other potential sources of proof could've been. If I did I would tell you.

how do you know he chose not to include it in the bible?

Because it's not there. Just like God didn't include ever meal Moses ate or how Noah spent every seccond of his day. He also didn't tell us all about each of Joseph's conversations, etc

 

[waitasec]

I've stopped using the word method and have said that some parents might have offered other sources of proof. And I still don't know what those possible other sources of proof were.

why were those other sources of proof not included in this infallible book since you your self said mankind was fallible.

it's like saying to a 3 yr old who understands what the word "no" means.
to not cross the street and then leave them unattended

i mean really. if your god cares so much, why leave room for error?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By seeing if someone says things based on the that are consistent with God's nature or what the Bible says in general.

But how could you possibly determine either of those things? You've already said that we cannot understand what God wants, so how can you say anything about God's nature? And how can you suddenly determine what the Bible - a book that has given birth to countless varying interpretations and denominations - "says in general"?

For example if someone said God hated human beings that would be inconsistent with the way the Bible presents God and therefore there'd be no reason to believe they got that idea from the Bible.

How is that inconsistant with the way the Bible presents God? God drowned almost all of humanity at one point. He inflicts unnecesarry pain and suffering on innocents, punishes people unjustly, refuses to help those who need him and tricks people into almost committing acts of human sacrifice. That sounds very consistant with a God who hates humans.

Or if someone said lying was okay b/c the Bible says it is would also be a wrong understanding b/c the Bible clearly says lying is wrong.

But is slavery wrong? God specifically endorses slavery in the old testament.

 

[waitasec]

I really don't know what the other potential sources of proof could've been. If I did I would tell you.

but you do know as you continually say there was another way to prove unequivocally her a virgin. so why say you don't know and then with the same breath say, 'god wouldn't let an innocent die' without actually providing evidence or something that would support your desperate plea other than wishful thinking? wishful thinking is not evidence.

Because it's not there.

then you have 2 options to consider.
1. the bible is fallible
2. god doesn't care about the details that hinges on either life or death for a girl

 

[CMike]

No. you need a simple majority.


As well as,

You are right

 

[CMike]

Here you are wrong.


The Jewish court was disbanded at this time.

I am quoting from Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, 9:1 and the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 17a.

But if you would rather have a rabbi's opinion, you can get it from

OzTorah » Blog Archive » Sanhedrin & unanimous conviction – Ask the rabbi
Or here
Jewish Treats: The Great Sanhedrin
Or here
Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why the trial of Jesus never could be blamed on the Jews. Their scripture states that all found him guilty and sentenced him.
If it was a unanimous verdict, he would have been acquitted, thereby making His death someone else's problem.

 

[Vadergirl123]

110 pages to discuss/debate with former Christians why we left.

It started out as that haha

Reasonable conversations don't last this long. We're going around in circles, VaderGirl. What has been your point arguing with all of us over our interpretations of the Bible and our experiences with Christianity? Seriously.

When I'm asked questions I usually answer them. and I'm not arguing over anyone's experiences with christianity. Proof of virginity has nothing to do with a christain experience. In fact I don't even think I brought it up.

you tell me what type of wickedness a new born can do, or even a toddler?

Define wickedness?

as innocent as anyone else.

Inoccent as anyone else? what do you beleive makes someone inoccent?

this attribute of god is the most intriguing one...how does one determine god is against sex before marriage and how does one justify people being murdered for it?

The Bible talks and shows that he's against sex before marriage. As to justification why does God need a person's approval for what he does?

nationalism and justification for retaliation..."if god said i may do it and god help those who try to stop me"

What?? You didn't answer my question. Do you believe children can do no wrong?

and how do you determine the source of the bible is an accurate source, blind faith?

You're asking how I determine God's accurate. Internal and external conistency of the Bible, which he claims are his words.