God doesn't understand women either...

or at least it seems that He doesn't understand the physiology he gave them.In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, the Bible sets out rules by which a man may divorce his wife on their wedding night, by declaring that she was not a virgin.According to His rules, the divorce stands unless the parents prove her innocence by showing the bloodstained sheets to the local populace.If there is no stain then the girl may be murdered by the town. If there is blood, then she goes free.Now it is pretty common knowledge that a stained sheet doesn't mean anything. The girl may have already broken her hymen during a variety of activities (even nonsexual ones), or her hymen may have been so tough (or the guy's dick so small) that it didn't break.Either way, God let this rather strange superstition slip into law so that essentially women can be murdered simply for not having their hymen's break according to "the rules."Is there a reason God would not understand this fact? Or why, if he knew this fact, he'd allow such a cruel and baseless law into his book?------------------
holmes

Wow Holmes,I never thought of that one. Good job.Not to be course but there was no blood when I lost my virginity.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Women in the OT were considerably less active than women are today, not riding horses, doing gymnastics, running or any heavily athletic activities, so there was a far smaller chance that that protective barrier would break. Also, there was more than one way to prove a girls innocence- the bloodstained sheets were just the easiest and most common.

I understand that a venerable Russian marriage tradition was that a newlywed couple was always given a live chicken as one of their gifts. Then, during the wedding night, they'd be sure to slaughter the chicken and bloody the sheets with it, just to be sure there was enough blood to satisfy the townspeople that she was a virgin. Kinda rough on the sheets, though. You'd think that would get expensive for peasants.

This is a joke right? Even if the majority of women were "less active" as you say, this does not mean that a certain number would not have lost it due to nonsexual activitie of some kind. Furthermore, this totally discounts the other reasons blood would not be present when a girl has sex with a man for the first time.But I totally dispute women being less active back then. Remember they had a lot less conveniences back then and quite a bit of work to do. And to get around they would have to ride horses or mules, not that these are the only physical activities capable of stretching that area. The easiest? You mean the most fallacious. This is a myth, at least a myth for one to believe that it is so common among virgins that you can use it as a sign of "innocence".Whether there were other possible ways to check up on "innocence" is not in question. The subject here is that it is the ONLY BIBLICALLY MANDATED way to do so. The Bible is inerrant, it is the word of God. And yet he mandates the most unfair and erroneous method to determine if a girl had slept with another man before?This means God is either one vicious mysogynist, or it was written by men who had no real knowledge of the human body.If you have some other references from scripture to show that God downplayed this method and recommended more realistic 'evidence" I will happily take back my charge. Until then, the Bible is errant.------------------
holmes

ofcourse, God is telling people to have evidence, are you against evidence Sherlock?And you are also assuming that it was the same for women back then,without knowing for a fact.'But if a man find a betrothed woman in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die
But unto the woman thou shalt do nothing : there is in the woman no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter.'
So, you say he doesn't understand women!

Genesis 3:16:Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband,[1] he will be your master." (and that's a kind rendition of the hebrew, unless you use NIV's awful awful word mangling to make it "nice" for a modern audience)Or what is probably my most despised verse in the bible...Dt. 23-24:"Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of the town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will cleanse the land of evil."Mike, your last post is despicable, you deliberately cut out Dt. 23-24 to try and show God as kind, and ignored the fact that God is saying that it's a woman's fault for being raped in a city because she didn't scream loud enough.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2003]

'Or what is probably my most despised verse in the bible...'But I believe in all of it, including the logic of Jesus'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
So is it really a problem nowadays, none of us could stone anyone, because of Jesus' words!Do I assume you favour adultery? do you think it sinless?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-17-2003]

'Mike, your last post is despicable, you deliberately cut out Dt. 23-24 to try and show God as kind, and ignored the fact that God is saying that it's a woman's fault for being raped in a city because she didn't scream loud enough.'You cut me to the quick, It says she is sinles, i admitt I leave some things out, for I do not enjoy typing. i honestly didn't read anything about shouting, I will go back and read again!No, that was the before passages, I was referring to the ones I mentioned,only.Forgive me , I admitt I only read the ones after again I will go and find out.lol[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-17-2003][This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-17-2003][This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-17-2003]

I find no wrong in the passage, having now read it. (including Jesus words about stoning) besides it had nothing to do with the point I was making.

quote:

---

I find no wrong in the passage, having now read it.

---

? ? ? ? ? !!!!!!!!!!!Please tell me that you are kidding. Please tell me that you didn't mean to say that you find no wrong in a woman being put to death for being raped because she didn't "scream loud enough"????------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes you are wrong, (remember, he without, sin first stone)
I admitt I was wrong, I completely missed that passage. However the first passage I qouted was another paragraph - and another subject, where God says a woman who is raped is completely innocent, which i agree with!!!Please do not be angry, I believe we have muddled 2 different passages!

The passage that you quoted was the one immediately after what I stated. In short, you took the "good" part, and left out the part where God endorses something atrocious. You deliberately manipulated the text by your omission. Did you not?? ;(------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

'You deliberately manipulated the text by your omission'I swear by my own blood I did not, if you don't believe me there is nothing I can do.

Also I disagree with the 'atrocious' as i also consider (in my beliefs)
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE - Jesus Christ.Besides, your conclusions about God saying kill women who have been raped, - well lets just say i don't think it says that.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-17-2003][This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-17-2003]