Incorrectly stoning the virgins

[Me Myself]

I got a question for jews (or anyone that wants to answer really)

First I admit it is a question, and I admit I may have maybe many things wrong with presupositions on it, but I am gonna make it anyways so anyone with the knowledge may correct me freely on any of such matters or/and answer the question (or it´s corrected version)

So the questions:

Why does God commanded to stone a woman that could not provide "evidence" of her virginity bia bloody sheets, when a woman may very well be a virgin and not bleed on the first time? Did God not knew this? are we supposing for some reason every virgin bled then because... Idk, the not bleeding on the first time is something recent maybe? (I wouldn´t know) Or am I missing something important?

Because I assume God wouldn´t want to say bleeding is the way to know if she is a virgin if it is not, given that that would mean women who did not broke the law would be stoned, and even if not stoned, at least publicly disgraced given this false supposition God has given to the people about the nature of virginity.

 

[Me Myself]

No answers? no corrections?

So... virgins were killed by this then?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Perhaps the man was not well endowed?

I really thought this thread was going to be about something different with all the legalization going on.....:run:

 

[beenie]

Can anyone explain why the woman would be punished for not being a virgin, while the man wouldn't? Clearly he's not a virgin either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can anyone explain why the woman would be punished for not being a virgin, while the man wouldn't? Clearly he's not a virgin either.

If you're not a chattel to be bought and sold, then factors affecting the price you can fetch don't matter as much.

 

[Me Myself]

Can anyone explain why the woman would be punished for not being a virgin, while the man wouldn't? Clearly he's not a virgin either.

I agree this is unfair too, but I would prefer not to discuss this part so that this thread is not derailed

I am curious about why God left a terrible way of determining whether the woman was innocent of breaking the law or not. (not whether the law was fair)

 

[Vultar]

I got a question for jews (or anyone that wants to answer really)

First I admit it is a question, and I admit I may have maybe many things wrong with presupositions on it, but I am gonna make it anyways so anyone with the knowledge may correct me freely on any of such matters or/and answer the question (or it´s corrected version)

So the questions:

Why does God commanded to stone a woman that could not provide "evidence" of her virginity bia bloody sheets, when a woman may very well be a virgin and not bleed on the first time? Did God not knew this? are we supposing for some reason every virgin bled then because... Idk, the not bleeding on the first time is something recent maybe? (I wouldn´t know) Or am I missing something important?

Because I assume God wouldn´t want to say bleeding is the way to know if she is a virgin if it is not, given that that would mean women who did not broke the law would be stoned, and even if not stoned, at least publicly disgraced given this false supposition God has given to the people about the nature of virginity.

1. If "bloody sheets" is all the proof they need, then wouldn't women be virgins 5 days out of every month.

2. I really hope the virgin isn't anemic.

3. A "stoned" virgin does not remain a virgin for long...

 

[Me Myself]

1. If "bloody sheets" is all the proof they need, then wouldn't women be virgins 5 days out of every month.

2. I really hope the virgin isn't anemic.

3. A "stoned" virgin does not remain a virgin for long...

I would imagine the sheets must be pulled out with the blood being fresh and the person could just say she is not a virgin immidiately after the act and having no blood.

But I am guessing here, no jew or person with more kbowledge about jewish law would like to clear this up for me?

Did God just didn´t care? do you see the law as being flawed?

I would like an answer. : /

 

[F0uad]

I belief it was a law that was passed down when the Jews were traveling the dessert for quick justice since there was no time to spend. However i can be totally wrong or the verse could simply be false a statement i dont know.

 

[Me Myself]

I belief it was a law that was passed down when the Jews were traveling the dessert for quick justice since there was no time to spend. However i can be totally wrong or the verse could simply be false a statement i dont know.

So it is justice to kill a woman that was virgin on the charge that she was not, simply because she did not bleed?

I have nothing against quick justice, as long as it is truly just. Not that I will get into the fact of whether it is just or not to stone a non virgin woman in this thread.

 

[marshjohn]

LOL a god is interested to know about his followers whether they are virgin or not.

 

[Me Myself]

I am more stunned (sorry pun ) about him being so bad to make a system to determine that.

 

[idav]

I am more stunned (sorry pun ) about him being so bad to make a system to determine that.

That is a valid concern especially since there are other activities that could cause bleeding such as horseback riding.

It might have been easier to tell by throwing them in the river and see if they float or not.:sarcastic

 

[Me Myself]

I still don´t find anyone trying to say "Hey! God knew what he was dong because...." or "Well, God knew, but the prophet got it wrong because..." or idk, something? <_< >_>

 

[Me Myself]

I actually wanted to put this on the jewish DIR but wanted to be sure no one would take it as a deliberate action to offend or something.

I truly would like to know how does someone who believes God said that explains to himself this problem o.o

 

[idav]

I still don´t find anyone trying to say "Hey! God knew what he was dong because...." or "Well, God knew, but the prophet got it wrong because..." or idk, something? <_< >_>

Yeah uh... prophets aren't always correct. They are fallible as is anything they write. Remember the blunder Abraham made by having a kid with his maid servant rather than his wife. Doh, yeah it's like that.

 

[Me Myself]

May any jewish or christian out there answer me please! >.<

Better yet, a bunch of them

 

[Me Myself]

o.o ....

NO ANSWERS?

Am I to assume your god made a mistake that costed the stoning of law abiding women?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I got a question for jews (or anyone that wants to answer really)

First I admit it is a question, and I admit I may have maybe many things wrong with presupositions on it, but I am gonna make it anyways so anyone with the knowledge may correct me freely on any of such matters or/and answer the question (or it´s corrected version)

So the questions:

Why does God commanded to stone a woman that could not provide "evidence" of her virginity bia bloody sheets, when a woman may very well be a virgin and not bleed on the first time? Did God not knew this? are we supposing for some reason every virgin bled then because... Idk, the not bleeding on the first time is something recent maybe? (I wouldn´t know) Or am I missing something important?

Because I assume God wouldn´t want to say bleeding is the way to know if she is a virgin if it is not, given that that would mean women who did not broke the law would be stoned, and even if not stoned, at least publicly disgraced given this false supposition God has given to the people about the nature of virginity.

I belive the answer from some would be as follows. God is perfect, and his law is perfect. Had the woman been a virgin, and the man to tiny to pop the cherry, then god would have sent an angel to do it, and she would have bled.

There was no mistake. That is impossible. The woman's brutal stoning was in accordance with the absolute morals of god. Your mistake is in trying to apply objectivity and decide for yourself what is right and wrong. That seems rather arrogant to me

 

[savagewind]

It does not make sense to me that a garment could prove innocence. And I do not know how a man could know his wife was not a virgin. If it is assumed that the first intercourse should show blood, the blood would not be on her garment. Do I have to explain that?*

This is what I think. It was originally written plural garments. In those days a virgin wore different clothing than a married woman. So when the fool man accused the poor girl of wrongdoing her parents brought out her virginity dresses to publicly declare the man is full of mischief himself.


*The woman is not in her clothes when having sex. Why would blood be expected on her clothes?

And why would the parents have her clothes after she has become the man's to show?