Then I believe it would have stated it as such in Deu 22:25. However it is very specific in that chapter and verse that the man would be put to death for forcefully taking a women. Not because he didn't pay the dowry.

This you are speaking of is when the man seduces a women and they enter into a consensual intercourse. That is described in Deu: 22:28. If so judged it required the man to follow through with his advances, ante up the 50 shekel dowry, marry the woman and was never allowed to put her away her.

Maybe so, in some parts of the world hence Yehovah's Commandments to the contrary. Which is the point I want to make that Yehovah DOES NOT condone such action he has Commandments against it. If it was a family who abides in Torah then a father who loved his God would not ever dream of putting his daughter through such an ordeal of having to marry a man who committed the heinous act of taking her by force against her will.

I think you're making things up out of whole cloth. You're adding to the text to create a bizarre distinction between kinds of knowledge in order to be able to excuse god by having man know some things about good and bad, while not knowing other things, which he has to in order for the fruit to have any effect and the story to make sense.

How can things be generally accepted when there are only 2 people on the planet?

If "uncovering of genitals" is a "truth", then why isn't obeying god a "truth"? And if man has the "truth", why would he listen to a snake in the first place?

Being able to distinguish between truth and falsehood does not give you knowledge. That only comes through experience. Without having experienced death, you can't know what it is.

And you really have to go the the psalms to try and make the story make sense?

So all the inhabitants of the Americas and Australia as well as most of Asia and Africa are out of luck? All those poor Native Americans are burning in hell now because they were born in the wrong in the place at the wrong time? That's some god you have.

So god creates the universe, with its estimated 10^24 stars and untold number of planets, waits 9 billion years for Earth to even be formed, then waits about another 3.5 billion years for hominids to evolve, then ignores all of them until homo sapiens arrives ~100,000 years ago, and then waits another 96,000 years, (during which life was probably short and brutal for his favorite animals), until finally revealing his message. But not to all people - oh no - just to a specific tribe in the Middle East.

And the Torah that he gives to his people mostly consists of lots and lots of bloodshed, impossible stories, and petty, silly minutia repeated ad nauseam - like how to slaughter animals for sacrifice and what to do with the blood (because naturally a being that created the entire universe has to have his burnt offerings done juuuuuuust right), the exact design of an altar and other temple implements, and helpful reminders, like when he tells his chosen people to go outside their encampment to relieve themselves.

Isn't it more likely, when you look at how this religion doesn't fit reality as we now know it to be (and which god couldn't be bothered to tell us about), that it's just another religion made up by ancient people, like so many thousands of others which I take it you dismiss?

How do you get all that from "continue"? And so he survives for a day or two - he still dies from his master's assault. How is this ok again? I'd love to see that defense used in court.

Sorry, owning another human being is never ok, regardless of whether a master is cruel or not. We understand this - apparently god doesn't? And regardless of what god "meant", his omniscience means he's going to see the effects of his commandments, and how it's going to to justify the suffering of millions of people in the future. Did this give him pause? Nope.

The only resource I have is an online phonetic Hebrew bible, but I couldn't find "tabas" or anything like it in that passage. Anyway, the only information I was able to find about "tabas" did not give "seduce" as a meaning; rather, "take hold of" seems to be the likeliest meaning, which doesn't let god off the hook.

But regardless, if you're right, now your god is commanding us to punish people for premarital sex - not a huge improvement. And again, the woman's wishes are irrelevant - the punishment for the man is to marry the woman, regardless of whether the woman wants to marry him or not. Again, women are property. Why does god think they are, while we know they aren't?

Now you'll say "it made sense in that context", but there in lies the problem. An eternal, omniscient being should be above context. What's the use of him saying anything if it only applies to an extremely limited time and place? Why follow this god that, when he had the opportunity to give us great moral lessons, he decided to give us this instead - barbaric practices that are thankfully now completely outdated?

Why does the creator of the universe act exactly like something a backward, bronze age patriarchical society might make up?

Why do you worship such a sadist? Why do you worship a god that is less moral than you are? Does it make sense that the creator of the entire universe is so pathetically insecure and so hungry for blood?

That's just the point - no such passages exist. Jesus couldn't be bothered to say them.

There are two different versions of the creation story - chapter 1, which has god creating animals on the 5th and 6th days, and humans (men and women) on the 6th day, and chapter 2, which has god creating man, then creating all other creatures in the search for a "help mate" for Adam (why does an omniscient god even need to do this?), before finally creating woman.

And speaking of helpmates, could you please explain who was Cain's wife? :DL

I'll add some reply to Rockstar concerning women. You're pulling a verse out without studying the complete law and rites.

Consider
Exodus 22:16-17 (King James Version)



16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

This clearly explains that premarital sex took place and it was the mans duty to marry her, but she was still the property of the father and it was his decision. In the verses you use you're trying to turn rape into seduction, this is actual seduction and the remedy, it was up to the father. If the father refused marriage, the man paid and went on his way without any further rebuke.

Laws concerning women caught in battle.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (New International Version, ©2011

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.


Here again, the man takes the woman, mainly out of pure sexual attraction. Obvious the higher your rank or status as a soldier, you got the pick of the litter. Again marriage is desired, but not commanded. Verse 14 clearly states if the man is not pleased with her after sex, he had to let her go, he could not sell her. The only price the man paid was not his honor, but the fact he dishonered her, so she was given her freedom. Men took many wives and concubines this way according to law, but let even more go free after sex.

They're actually numerous verses concerning premarital sex vs. the property rights of the father. In every case of pre-marital sex in the Bible there is no punishment for the sexual act. The only penalty is the compensation to the father for the woman's change in status.

You state that the father serving God wouldn't put his daughter through such abuse. Well, you don't understand the cultural or how biblical law set the standards. Due to the patriarchal society, a family with sons was stronger than a family with daughters. However, cultures find ways to balance wealth and power. In the OT culture, a man seeking marriage would pay the father of the bride. The value of the bride was determined by many factors including her beauty, ability to bear children, strength, various household skills and even her status as a virgin.

Also remember in biblical times most young women were betrothed based on a family financial deal. Sometimes she never even had met her husband until the wedding day. The father was more concerned with wealth. And once betrothed they families had to wait until the girl was 12.5 year old before they could marry.

In biblical times there was nothing wrong with a married man having as many wives as he could afford, concubine and "common" prostitutes. Adultery was only wrong for a married women, since it violated her husbands property (and sexual) rights over her and his other wives or concubines.

In biblical times men were masters, and ruled over women and their children. Women had very few rights, and men often bought women from their families or at an auction usually at age 12.5. Women were owned property of a man like it or not.

Much debate now consist how the NT changed OT law. However, we have a historical study how the church applied it. Polygamy, womans value, property rights consisted for many years after Christ among many christians, both jew and gentile, more of a cultural issue. It was finally put away by one of the Popes. The issue wasn't spiritual, but to protect property from being taken out of the church. The same reason another Pope ended all marriages against God's word for priest and further forbade them, all about property. For the most part polygamy, women as property lasted for another few hundred years after Christ in the church. The only one who couldn't have numerous wives were deacons, the Pastors of the day, they were commanded by Paul to take only one wife. In the end, the bible included a lot of cultural laws that became woven into mosaic law commanded by the priest getting it directly from God...or so they say. It seems that political views based on a mix of religion and culture evolved womens rights and issues about sexuality from then after.

OT is nice for understanding God's original purposes, but the NT is quite clear that if you live by the law you will die by the law.

In the OT if you broke one law you broke all of the laws and the only payment required was listed as the blood of a perfect lamb, etc on down to a turtle dove or a wine and grain offering for lessor sins.

But as any real believer knows the blood of the Son of God has paid for the sins you have confessed and repented of ...

You will hear about the sins you have not repented of on judgment day. It is not nice to continue in sin if you know you are sinning.

As for unbelievers only the Holy Spirit can convict you of sin anyway ... so don't worry about it. He only enters into your heart if you ask Him to.

Dear Lord Jesus I am a sinner and in or of myself I can do nothing to save myself. I invite you into my heart and into my soul. I confess you as my Lord and believe that you paid for all of my sins on the cross at Calvary.

_____________________ signed

It doesn't get easier than that, but most people have to have a break down or someone in the family passes away or a wreck or doctor's negative report can trigger a trip into the unknown world of God the father, God the son and God as the comforter in the form of the Holy Spirit.

The unity of the trinity ... the power of the universe was the meat of St Patrick's prayer.

Besides if there is no hell then you don't have to fear God :woot:

My children fear me and no hell here, nor would I threaten them with torture to get their attention, not to mention if I did the law would lock me up for being an abusive parent.

Correct fear seeks a solution for the betterment of the person, not to control them out of causing pain. Hope you don't treat you loved ones that way.

You proved again, people only accept Jesus out of fear or torture...What a loving relationship.

The NT put away certain laws. Much confusion exist over mosaic law vs. ceremonial laws, cultural habits, etc..

Christ replace the law with the law of love, which James states "love doe's no harm, thus it fulfills the law. Simply sin is acts that harm others. If people lived that way and minded their own business, I think Christ was on to something.

The Greek definition of the word 'fear' is respect

God wants his servants to simply respect him, not to be afraid of him.

Keeping that in mind most personal accounts of meeting God have been shaking of the knees and instant confession that they are sinners.

You don't have to respect him if you don't love him that's for sure.

I wouldn't worry about it ... faith and fear are a lot alike in the small moment of time ,'click', that it takes to replace each other they are just alike.

And your point is what? Did see what the initial arguement was? The point I am making is Yehovah DOES NOT condone forcable rape in that he would require the VICTIM to marry the ATTACKER. What are you trying to argue here?

Here again read the words, he may have delivered the women into their hands. But it was not forcibly by rape or victimizing them. Yes the man was permitted to MARRY them! Is that even close to forcable rape? NO! What ATTACKER gives a rats arse about honor? Does an ATTACKER of women care whether he marrys her?

Are you telling me the modern man nolonger sees the outward appearence? I do, and how, ask my wife what first attracted me to her she'll tell you sure wasn't on account of her education.

What about the human side of this? Did you ever think the woman never loved this man? Maybe this man killed her husband her sons? Also there was no intercourse between them from the time of her capture to the end of her days of mourning. Only then did the man go in unto her to be her husband and if for whatever reason it didn't work out. The man was commanded to permit her to go WHENEVER SHE wanted to. Does that sound like forcible rape?


.

And I still stand by that truth. But let me ask you anyways, does it state anywhere in either the Tanach or Brit Chadasha that Yehovah condones a VICTIM of heinous crime of forcible rape to marry her ATTACKER? This has nothing to do with seduction where two are consenting or the spoils of war where a man finds a woman and takes her in marriage or payment of the usual normal 50 shekel dowry.

If you do then show me where

Rockstar, you totally missed the point. I was responding to your statement on rape. I agree it's a death sentence, but you seem to imply that mutual sex always equaled married. However, I would state rules then certainly would be defined rape today. Biblical law allowed arranged marriages, women bought at auction for marriage, etc. Captive women had no rights, they became the property of the army and delved out. Sure they were allowed to mourn, but then the man could have sex with her and she had to marry him, or he sent her on her way. The jews fought other tribes, so the property rights of a differing tribe had no effect to woman caught in battle. To me all the above are rape, but they were biblically allowed by God to do so...

The main point, a man having sex with a woman not rape, if they were caught there was no death sentence nor did it equal marriage. I clearly stated only with the fathers permission. Simply the act of sex didn't equal a must marriage, nor did it make them married. It was up to the father. Had nothing to do with love, if he was a broke lad, most fathers sent him packing.
Guess that never ends, seems marriage all about money even then as much as many women marry today for it.

The other point you seem to miss, women were property and biblical law supported such. I think no such thing, I believe it was cultural, that the priest wove the cultural law into the mosaic law and God got the credit for giving it all, but the bible gives God the credit...People that take the bible literally often don't know how to defend these God given laws. The bible is full of culture, history, tribal ethics. Most Christians say polygamy was sin, it wasn't biblically, God approved it, ordained it and even ordered it at times. Nor was it put away in the NT, it continued until Popes put it away 100's of years later.

In the end, all the law was given only to the jews, it wasn't meant for anyone else, where I would agree God's moral law would still stand for all.

yeah, i think people shouldn't really take bible and wotnot literally. i mean it's pretty childish thing to do. religion is all about explaining good and bad things and code of ethics and laws to live by, but binded by fanaticism. i think all religions are the same in their nature, and if people didnt follow it so litereally world would be a much safer and better place.

It would an interesting concept to understand how religion evolved as man. Obvious as man evolved, early studies show most anything man couldn't understand or fear became god like. In early man tribes made gods out of wind, animals, the sun, storms, and many placed god like man beings in control. One can just search arch for ancient gods and goddesses in two ways, by culture or date and you'll find thousands created.