Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

going to the bathroom and deciphering if one is to be stoned to death are 2 completely different things

Yes they are different things , but both aren't mentioned in the Bible.I was trying to show that just because something isn't mentioned as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible there's no harm in asusming it wasn't there.

so if someone else does the killing for you, as you cheer...you're not associated with it, at all.what an interesting set of morals

Yep those are interesting and they're NOT my morals. If someone was killing inoccent women they wouldn't have been using God's law correctly, so there'd be no reason for me to cheer for an incorrect usage of the law.

yes the god of the OT says to kill the girl for not bleeding and for not being a virgin for the man she is marrying.vs 20.

Vs 20 says, " If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found." God doesn't want an inoccent women killed.

 

[waitasec]

Define wickedness?

evil morally objectionable behavior.

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

not being guilty.

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?

so people being murdered for having sex before marriage settles well with you?

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

children are innocent if they do not have the ability to judge for themselves.

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

what is the external consistency?

 

[Vadergirl123]

She was an innocent who God allowed to be killed, despite your insistence that could never happen.

When I said God wouldn't have allowed an inoccent women to die I meant within that law(I thought I said that) because the law represented him and a wrong use of it would'nt have represented him well.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes they are different things , but both aren't mentioned in the Bible.I was trying to show that just because something isn't mentioned as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible there's no harm in asusming it wasn't there.

Yep those are interesting and they're NOT my morals. If someone was killing inoccent women they wouldn't have been using God's law correctly, so there'd be no reason for me to cheer for an incorrect usage of the law.

Vs 20 says, " If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found." God doesn't want an inoccent women killed.

I'll try your debate method for a second....

How do you know? You weren't there. How do you know God doesn't want an innocent woman killed?

I will put this gently - it's conversations like these with inflexible and dispassionate positions that support my reasons for leaving. If I am bisexual, just change (oh well). If I am not Christian enough, repent and remember I'm a sinner and cannot function without God and Jesus (oh well). Stop questioning and just do as the Bible says, Mystic (oh well).

No thanks.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Exactly, you would stone a woman you assumed was guilty because you have faith that the imperfect method of determining guilt the Bible describes must be perfect. You'd murder a woman you thought was guilty, and wouldn't worry that you might be incorrect. Pretty sick, you have to admit.

If no proof of her inocence was found why shouldn't I think she was guilty and again God wouldn't have created a law to kill inoccent women.

So the Bible explicitly tells us how we can determine whether or not a woman is a virgin before we murder her for sexual immorality? Where?

No, I never said it did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If no proof of her inocence was found why shouldn't I think she was guilty and again God wouldn't have created a law to kill inoccent women.

So you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"?

There's a reason we kind of got rid of that notion.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Every single witch was still an innocent woman even if "witchery" was illegal. There is no such thing as witchery in the traditional sense.

What made the witches inoccent?

I meant that people could have used the law to have innocent women killed, which isn't too unlikely if you look at the historical context.

Well when people interpret the Bible incorrectly bad things can happen

However, murdering women because they had sex before marriage is still morally wrong according to me.

Fair enough, you can have whatever morals you want.

God basically says "follow me or go to hell", the only option that doesn't cause eternal torture is to follow him, and that is indeed forcing.

We were cursed when Adam sinned so as I've already said we brought sin upon ourselves. God didn't create us as sinners.

While it may look like a choice, there's only one option that doesn't lead to torture

It's still a choice though, but you think it's an unfair one.

Don't remember. It was a very long time ago.

Oh well would you say that before you accepted a pacifist lifestyle it felt more natural to seek revenge when someone wronged you?

 

[waitasec]

Yes they are different things , but both aren't mentioned in the Bible.I was trying to show that just because something isn't mentioned as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible there's no harm in asusming it wasn't there.

but not having it in the bible contradicts the notion the bible is infallible.

Yep those are interesting and they're NOT my morals.

yes they are.
you said:

God's always been against sex before marriage and what makes you think the Midianites were an "inoccent" people?

tell me, do you think god commanded the murder of these people because of sex or because they were midianites?

If someone was killing inoccent women they wouldn't have been using God's law correctly, so there'd be no reason for me to cheer for an incorrect usage of the law.

you need to clear this up.
if god, in your mind, justified killing innocent children because they were midianites...or in other words 'guilty of being wicked', is a virgin completely innocent of all wickedness or just the sin of having sex before marriage?

the way you lay this out is, it's ok to kill people for their wickedness because they are in fact innately wicked. but then why would god care if a few innocent virgins died needlessly since they too are wicked regardless if they are virgins or not

Vs 20 says, " If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found." God doesn't want an inoccent women killed.

but the girl isn't innocent. no one is, according to your twisted theology

 

[Vadergirl123]

Here to me is what the scary thing is. You'd assume those that did happen to die were not innocent. On that alone you are judging their guilt.

According to the Bible I have no reason to believe inoccent women were killed.

Your assuming God would have intervened were innocence is found.

I don't beleive God would've allowed his people to use a law that represented him to justify killing inoccent women no.

So if we think someone is a witch, lets burn them because if they are not God would have done something to intervene.

What? Why should we do that? God doesn't tell us to burn witches.

Like Satan telling Jesus to throw himself off the cliff. God would never let the son of God to fall to his death right?

Yeah Satan told Jesus to do that but Jesus chose not to. I don't really see what you're trying to say?

 

[Nakosis]

According to the Bible I have no reason to believe inoccent women were killed.

Yes, that's the point. Your willing to allow a religious document to determine their guilt.

I don't beleive God would've allowed his people to use a law that represented him to justify killing inoccent women no.

So you believe God will take away their freewill? Because if they had wanted to kill a women they thought was guilty then God would have prevented them from the sin of killing an innocent person. God intervenes when he chooses to take away man's freedom to sin. That's what you believe?

What? Why should we do that? God doesn't tell us to burn witches.

Many people thought such action was justified according to the Bible.

Exodus 2218 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Many people were killed as witches. Do you think they were all guilty. Or why didn't God prevent their deaths if they were innocent?

Yeah Satan told Jesus to do that but Jesus chose not to. I don't really see what you're trying to say?

You don't really?

Jesus replied

Jesus answered him, "It is also written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "

Don't you see that you are testing God by assuming God will intervene to prevent the killing of innocent people?

 

[waitasec]

According to the Bible I have no reason to believe inoccent women were killed.

who is innocent? no one, right?

 

[Shermana]

who innocent? no one, right?

Especially not if you believe in reincarnation.

 

[waitasec]

Especially not if you believe in reincarnation.

i will come back as a
lioness, that or a squirrel

 

[mycorrhiza]

What made the witches inoccent?

Witchery not existing. So everyone who was called a witch was falsely accused.

We were cursed when Adam sinned so as I've already said we brought sin upon ourselves. God didn't create us as sinners.

Seeing as God is omniscient, He knew that if He created man, they would sin. So I would say that He created men as sinners if we are to trust the Bible. God decided what a sin was. Before God decided, there was no sin. So God created the concept of sin. He would have to decide that eating of the tree of knowledge was a sin, otherwise there would have been no sin when Adam ate of it.

It's still a choice though, but you think it's an unfair one.

Then the same thing applies to the dictator scenario (where he says follow me or get tortured), which you said that it did not.

Oh well would you say that before you accepted a pacifist lifestyle it felt more natural to seek revenge when someone wronged you?

I don't remember, I was just a kid. I guess little kids aren't too good at making rational decisions based on logic.

 

[Astravalon]

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.

I used to believe we brought sin upon ourselves as well.
However, it would seem that this is not the case, some of
the reasons being what Josh mentions above.

Also, a couple of reasons cited by scripture itself:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things." (Isaiah 45:7)

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience
so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32)
​

Basically -- and I think this would apply to any deity of any
belief system where blame is placed upon the creation for
it's shortcomings -- if people stumble in the dark, it's not
their fault. The responsibility for their stumbling lies
squarely on the shoulders of the one who created that
darkness, or who created the environment conducive to said
stumbling. In this case, I don't think man's flaws are a
shock or a disappointment to God. He dimmed the lights for
a reason. It's all part of the overall plan, and if Romans
11:32 is true (and I believe the general idea behind it is),
it's a temporary phase in the overall journey to something
better.


-

 

[waitasec]

What made the witches inoccent?

Witchery not existing. So everyone who was called a witch was falsely accused.

i find it amazing that the obvious has to be mentioned...

i'm not only amazed, i am dumbfounded, flabbergasted, and shocked.



oh that's right, no one is innocent, right Vadergirl123?

 

[fantome profane]

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 aparently "God" allowed an innocent girl to be sacrificed in his name.

 

[Shermana]

Witchery not existing. So everyone who was called a witch was falsely accused.

If you don't believe it exists, go find a wiccan woman, do something to **** her off really bad, report your results in a few weeks.

 

[waitasec]

If you don't believe it exists, go find a wiccan woman, do something to **** her off really bad, report your results in a few weeks.

i don't think that is what was understood.

my god, we are talking about a time when if one was left handed they were considered to be guided by witchery.

 

[mycorrhiza]

If you don't believe it exists, go find a wiccan woman, do something to **** her off really bad, report your results in a few weeks.

There's quite the difference between Wicca and the traditional "witches".

Anyway, I see no evidence that magic in it's traditional sense has ever worked any more than placebo. While I can't say with 100% certainty that magic doesn't work I can put it in the same pile as homeopathy and telekinesis.

The people who were accused of witchery were innocent.