Are you not just being over critical---a man has a responsibility to take care of his family, so this is part of his responsibility, a possession can also be considered as important---but it does say that in the beginning, Elohim said “Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Why should he? The possession of a penis does not make one wise, or have understanding, so other than the writers of the Bible trying to give divine sanction to making women second class citizens, why should a husband rule over a wife? Adam certainly didn't demonstrate superior reasoning skills, or any ability to lead, and in fact showed that he was definitely able to follow. Other than Yahweh being perceived as a male, there is no reason to presume that her faculties were inferior to Adam's. Other then providing justification for keeping women subordinate, this story has no value.
So what is wrong with that, the father and husband are responsible for the actions of his family. The family is a unit and there should be consensus.
People are responsible for their own actions.
The truthfulness of a woman's testimony or the validity of their oaths is not dependent on whether someone with a penis approves. Doing so turns women from rational actors to permanent legal children.
Today children act without the approval of the parents, and end up lying.
Now you being a person of order seems to be advocating anarchy.
My children occasionally do act without parental approval, and own up to the consequences of their actions. They were taught very early that they are responsible for their own actions.
I don't advocate anarchy, I advocate individual responsibility.
So again what is wrong with that—the command to honour your mother and father, means to live in the bounds of their approval. The husband will be accountable for what the wife or daughter says, so nothing can be binding unless sanctioned by the head of the house.
It is wrong because it denies half the human race any possibility of independent agency. It demeans women by telling them that they must have either a father or a husband to be responsible for them because they cannot be trusted on their own.
[/quote]No they are not—one is in Exodus, and the other in the(Deu 1:3 In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month,
Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded him concerning them. ) So here Moses expounded the law, going over what was taught, so the teaching in Exodus is the same as that taught in Deuteronomy.
Deu 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin
who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
Deu 22:29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Exo 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin
who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. [/quote]
They are the same laws—as I said if it were rape the man would be put to death. It infers that this act was not violent but consensual. Today so many girls are seduced and left, here it insures that this does not happen.
[/quote]
Rape and seduction. Two different words with vastly different meanings. In Deuteronomy the law is going through what to do in the event a woman is raped. The preceding verses and the subsequent deal with rape, not seduction and to pretend that the lawgivers suddenly meant seduction when they used the word rape is dishonest.
It is not rape, as I said the man would be put to death—seduction is not rape. What is here is that the sexual act that determines marriage was not prearranged with the parents. This is a common occurrence today.
Paul, the plain meaning of the text says that a rapist owes the victim the bride price, and then she's all his. In order to establish seduction the female would need to indicate that she was a willing participant, and if Daddy didn't like the prospective husband, all he needed to do was forbid her from testifying. Then it's rape, and Buddy gets to die. That strikes me more as Daddy protecting his financial interests in his daughter's virginity than justice, but then I don't view women as property.
Now only now you are beginning to see—the Kingdom of God is based on the Torah, and the applicable laws will form the basis for justice.
For one the death penalty does work where the criminal is let out or escapes and repeats his crime---God know that the death penalty is a deterrent, that is why in his infinite wisdom he commanded that it be incorporated in the justice order.
I see that you do not wish to actually understand how punishment works. There are none so blind....
