Vadergirl123
Active Member
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?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ex Christians
- Thread starter Vadergirl123
- Start date
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
Active Member
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
Active Member
Also a couple people have their own opinions on what "the point" of this passage is.fantôme profane;2970031 said:
Vadergirl123
Active Member
Hahaha we should send it in, it would definitely be interesting.fantôme profane;2970074 said:I would love to test it out. It would make a heck of a mythbusters episode.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
They like to ask the same questions over and over, and I keep answering them haha.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
God obviously doesn't view sex before marriage as simply, "screwing around."
Vadergirl123
Active Member
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
Active Member
No, we don't even know if the Israelites at the time of Moses used this method.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
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
Active Member
Suspected probably, but God wouldn't have allowed you to be unjustly killed.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
Yes
What are you talking about? I never said you couldn't speculate about anything.
Vadergirl123
Active Member
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
Nope, you're still wrong
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
Active Member
No he's not you can just chose him or hell(it's the punishment we have because we're sinners).
I'd disagree, but okay
How are your morals better than God's?
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 it is, which feels more natural getting revenge on someone who wrongs you or turning the other cheek?
Yes it is the consequence, according to the Bible anyway.
Why do you say 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
Well-Known Member
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".
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
Nope, you're still wrong
Yes, it is. You're wrong.
By this example alone my morals are better than God's.
Except by the proof of his actions, he does not love us.
Oh, don't start trying to work reality into this, now, as if that's some kind of excuse which supports your baseless assertions.
That's exactly what he says
Or burning alive for eternity
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.
You didn't understand the statement, again
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.
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'.
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.
Last edited:
Vadergirl123
Active Member
Yeah this thread goes fast hahaa
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
Princesinha
So subjective morality does not exist?
Do you believe there is such thing as right and wrong?
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".
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.