The Demonic Laws of the Christian God

Had this going on another thread but thought to make one on the topic so as to not derail it.

Now remember what Yeshi said:
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(Got the last part wrong in the other thread but its still clear that he said Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy)

Laws of the Christian God i find Demonic.

I will list a few now as i am having company soon.

1. Slavery.. not indentured slavery.
Leviticus 25:44-45.
44. Both your male and female slaves, whom you shall have, shall be of the nations that are round about you; of them shall you buy male and female slaves.
46. Also of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall you buy, and of their families that are with you, whom they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46. And you shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your slaves forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, you shall not rule one over another with harshness.

Knowhere in the bible does God or Yeshi say ohh maybe i got that wrong. Heres what we should do from now on.

2. Death to male homosexuals.
Leviticus 20.13.
13. If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Thats some ISIS sheit right there!!

3. Working on the sabbath.
Exodus 31.15.
15. Six days may work be done; but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever does any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

4. Adultery.
Leviticus 20:10
10. And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

5. Females lying about being a virgin
Deuteronomy 22:17-21.
17. And, lo, he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, I found not your daughter a virgin; and yet these are the evidence of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20. But if this thing is true, and the evidence of virginity is not found for the young woman:
21. Then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies:

6. Death of a rape victim who was to scared to cry for help. Rape victim who is married.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
23. If a young woman that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24. Then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones so that they die; the young woman, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away evil from among you.

7.Rape victim who is not married. Forced to marry her rapist
Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
28. If a man find a young woman that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has violated her, he may not put her away all his days.

.......

Ok got visitors. Will add heaps more tomorrow.

Now remember what Yeshi said:
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy)

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Coomba,

Your mistaking that Jesus comes to fulfill the law. In another translation, it is as follows.

Matthew 5:17 ESV

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Romans 8:1-39 ESV

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

Jesus was the new covenant, as he states here.

Matthew 26:28 NIV

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He was the fulfillment for the LAW set by God, and the future payment for our sins.

originally posted by: coomba98
Now remember what Yeshi said:
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Whatever this means, it does not mean that he wants to preserve the written law of Moses in every detail.
That is evident from the way he criticised the details of the written law on other occasions. He was the one who did not want to see an adulterous woman stoned, and found a way of deflecting them away from the idea. He was the one who objected to men being allowed to divorce wives and make them destitute to suit their own convenience.
Indeed, Christians have NEVER accepted the Mosaic Law in all its written details, so calling them "the laws of the Christian God" is a little disingenuous.

So the Christian God does not intend the details of the law to be permanent, and allows them to be improved.
Bear in mind, always, that these laws have a mixed origin. Their faults come from their human origin, in that they arise from the standard practice of the society of the time, and the improvements which take them beyond the standard practice of the time are God's contribution.

Having said that, some of your criticisms are based on misunderstandings, which I have tried to sort out in other threads.

1. Slavery.. not indentured slavery.

This is an example of the standard practice of the time, over the whole cultural region.
God's contribution works in two ways; for one thing, he does his best to discourage them from enslaving their brethren. In the long-term, this leads to the abolition of slavery, once believers have come to understand everyone in the world as "their brethren", but this is a slow process. God does not "zap" people into doing the right thing instantly- he teaches them instead.
In the meantime, the rest of the slavery laws are about trying to ensure that slaves are not treated inhumanely.

God's Law- Your slaves

6. Death of a rape victim who was to [too] scared to cry for help.

Not so. The law is deliberately designed to distinguish between rape victims and women who consent, and NOT to punish the rape victim.
Regarding the act of rape, the law says "This case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbour". So the rape victim is equated with the murder victim- a pretty strong condemnation of the act. (Deuteronomy ch22 v26, the verse you carefully left out)
The rule of thumb for distinguishing between rape and consent is that rape takes place in the fields and consent in town. This principle does make sense in the social conditions of the time. It was possible to find a girl on her own in the fields, in the time of harvest (women would not be in the fields for any other purpose). In the towns of the time, women would nearly always be in the company of their family, or at least close neighbours. In town, it would be next to impossible to find a woman on her own unless she wanted you to find her on her own. A cry for help would attract help from someone nearby. If none was heard, it was reasonable for the law to assume that none was made.

7.Rape victim who is not married. Forced to marry her rapist

Again this is a falure to understand the social conditions of the time.
Quoting myself from another thread;

This is a society in which the bridegroom pays a bride-price to the woman’s parents, instead of expecting them to pay him a dowry.
So the man who takes the virginity of an unmarried woman is causing injury in three ways.
He injures her prospects of marriage, he injures any prospective husband by an act of adultery with his wife, and he causes financial injury to the family, by spoiling their chance to collect the bride-price.
The law on rape and seduction tries to deal with all three kinds of injury.

The true description of the law in question would be "Rapist who destroys a woman's life legally obliged to give her a new one, by providing her with permanent financial support.
In fact she was NOT forced to marry him. It was possible to refuse and collect the money instead; “then he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins”- Exodus ch22 vv16
The option of marrying him, against HIS will, was desirable because the alternative was not being married at all, and consequently living in probable destitution.
This is one of the laws designed to protect women, in the circumstances of the time.

God's Law- Your daughters

God's Law

(Copied from the last thread quoted above)

Your patient teacher

I am the son of two schoolteachers and the grandson of a third.
I may have mentioned this before.
This provides me with a very accessible analogy for the way God approaches the question of giving laws to the people of Israel.
He behaves like a teacher.

A good teacher is always conscious of the capabilities and limitations of his pupils, and he tries to give them teaching at the appropriate level.
He talks to them in terms which they will be able to understand, and sets out to improve their understanding in gradual ways.
If their reading abilities have taken them to the end of the first of the “Janet and John” books, then he offers them the second book.
If their mathematical skills have taken them as far as adding up and “taking away”, then he might begin showing them how to multiply and divide.
What he’s not going to do is start scribbling Einstein’s equations on the blackboard.
Teaching is not about “zapping” people with instantaneous advanced knowledge (except in science fiction stories).
It is the slow and patient work of gradual training.

We find a similar patience in the way the God of Israel deals with his people.
Thus his intention for marriage was that “a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Genesis ch2 v23).
Yet in the Old Testament laws he accepts, for the time being, the practice of divorce, which Jesus blames on “the hardness of their hearts” (Matthew ch19 v8).
And why does God allow them to fall short of the intended standard?
Because their minds are not yet ready for the intended standard.
They are still in training.

He finds this people living in a very patriarchal society, like all the other societies of the time.
Whatever he thinks about this, he does not try to change it at a stroke.
He modifies their behaviour gradually, beginning with some mild restraints on the husband’s power.
He finds them owning slaves, like all the other societies of the time.
Whatever he thinks about this, he does not try to abolish the custom at a stroke.
He modifies their behaviour gradually, providing slaves with some legal protection, and trying to discourage them from enslaving their own people.
He finds them loving their brothers and other kinsmen and encourages them to treat the rest of the nation in the same way.
However, they are not yet ready to extend the concept of “brothers” to the world at large, so that part of the training is postponed for a later stage.
He finds them offering animal sacrifices, like all the other societies of the time.
Whatever he thinks about this, he does not try to abolish the practice at a stroke.
Instead, he gradually changes the meaning of the word “sacrifice”, giving it a more and more metaphorical interpretation, and waiting until the more literal sacrifices can be brought to an end by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
And he finds them engaging in war, just like all the other societies around them.
But in this case, too, it takes time to wean them out of it.

In short, what we see in the laws of the Old Testament, and in the overall history of the Old Testament, is the slow and patient work of gradual training.
God does not “zap”. He teaches.

When modern critics are assailing the laws and the culture of the Old Testament, this is precisely what they are complaining about.
They don’t think God should have been giving his people this patient teaching.
They think he should have “zapped” them , instantly, to a state of spiritual maturity comparable to their own.
If they had been in God’s place (and they would certainly have done the job better) they would have “zapped”.

The God of the Old Testament is much more patient than they are.
He finds his people at the “cuh-ah-tuh-CAT” level of spiritual education, and he lifts them gradually.
A lot of work will be required before they can reach the kind of spiritual heights from which these critics can look down haughtily at the junior versions of themselves.
The fact that God is willing to undertake this slow and patient work is very revealing.
It shows us that God is a teacher.

originally posted by: coomba98
2. Death to male homosexuals.
Leviticus 20.13.
13. If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Thats some ISIS sheit right there!!

That's because it's the same god figure, so naturally the laws and rules and actions of that god in the Old Testament will be the same or similar. It's not until the New Testament (which is the focus of and the reason that CHRISTianity is called what it is) that this type of thinking was spoken against, but by Jesus, not YHWH.

What you're doing here is using the Old Testament to describe how Christians are taught to live their lives, and that is a dose of cognitive dissonance, as the focus of Christian teaching is the words of the New Testament, not the Old--it is to be revered, but Jesus' teachings negate a lot of what was supposed "law" in the O.T.

But I have no dog in this fight--I'm a reformed Christian (I'm atheist).

a reply to: Cygnis

a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hay guys,

Did Yeshi not say:
John7:16-19
16. Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17. If anyone desires to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God or whether I speak of myself.
18. He that speaks of himself seeks his own glory, but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law? Why do ye go about to kill me?

Yeshi did not come to change the law of old. He kept it. 'If' he personally went against a law, well does he not have the authority? But not man.

To say otherwise is cherry picking the stuff you like and rejecting the rest. Hence creating your own religion that is a bastardisation of Christianity. Meaning your God is not the Christian God of the bible.

Off to bed now. Night all.

Coomba98

Edit:
So you guys dont worry about the OT. The laws and commands of God is not the God you follow? Where does Yeshi specifically reject a law of old?

This brings another question to mind.

Q: is your God omnipotent, all powerful and perfect in every way. Knowing the past present and future?

originally posted by: coomba98
Did Yeshi not say:...

What he said needs to be balanced against the fact that he plainly did NOT support all the details of Mosaic law, as I have already pointed out.
The law which he keeps is the principle of the law, not the detail.
And why do you think he needed to make the promise that the law was going to safe? It will have been because his attitude to the Mosaic Law was already under suspicion, because of the incidents cited, and it was desirable to reassure his critics. Like De Gaulle saying "I have understood you" to the Frenchmen of Algiers.
And Christians have NEVER understood the details of the Law of Moses as part of their legacy, as I have already pointed out.
Look at the post following mine. Even an atheist can recognise that your endeavour to tar Christian faith with the Mosaic brush is not on the level. Shall I call it "disingenuous" again, or shall I use a blunter word?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hay DISRAELI,

What laws did he say whoops daddy and i screwed up there. Heres what God and I got wrong.

Where in the NT does Yeshi say this? Specifically.

Also any Christian who throws out the OT or even parts of it is not a true Christian. How can they be. Yeshi references them alot!!

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98
I have already quoted two examples.
If your mind could not absorb them the first time round, I will quote them again.
The Law of Moses allows men to divorce wives at will; Jesus says that this is wrong, because it isn't what God wants. Matthew ch19 v8
He is known to be unwilling to see adultery punished with stoning, so they bring an adulterous woman to him to try to force him into a corner. His whole attitide says that the punishment is wrong. John ch8
He draws attention to the fact that David broke ritual laws and says it doesn't matter; David was allowed to get away with it, and his disciples ahould be allowed to get away with trivial sabbath-breaking. Matthew ch12 vv1-8
The idea that Jesus was standing by every detail of the Mosaic Law does not match what happens in the rest of the gospels.

Furthermore, the Mosaic law has never been part of Christian teaching, as you know very well.
Therefore it has no relevance to criticism of the Christian faith, as you know very well.
Your definition of what constitutes a "true Christian" has no relevance either. The historic definition of Christianity does not include detailed adherence to the Law of Moses. End of story.
This is flogging a dead horse.

a reply to: coomba98

Let me ask you this.

Do you believe that the Bible is complete, true, inerrant, inspired and un-corrupted?

a reply to: coomba98

being also an atheist I find it hilarious when atheists quote the bible especially the old testament

like watching a presentation in college and you know they only used spark notes

a reply to: DISRAELI

Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom -- here and always. I don't say so often enough, but I appreciate all that you share in these religion threads. And I seldom respond, because I'm just trying to soak it all up!

a reply to: Boadicea
My pleasure. Always pleased to help.

a reply to: coomba98

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Got the last part wrong in the other thread but its still clear that he said Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy)

Most all that I have encountered do not understand what this means.

The Ten Commandments are not the Laws of Moses. The ten commandments were written by finger of The Most High and the Laws were given to each generation to teach those commands in the understanding of each culture. There are laws of Moses and there are Laws of later cultures by many rulers, but the commandments are there for eternity because the commandments are the essence of The Most High.

Matthew 22:36-38
(36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
(37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
(38) This is the first and great commandment.

You can note that Matthew did not say which is the great law. They had a different perspective of understanding Commandment - Law - Statute - and Ordinance than we do today. The commandments were given to cover all understandings of the laws of men.

Matthew 22:39-40
(39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Luke_16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Doesn't that contradict Jesus when He said that He came not to change the law but to fulfill the law? Not in the least does that contradict the Creator. Jesus did not change the commandments in the law but to fulfill the understanding of the commandments in the law. Luke does not teach that the commandments were only until the prophets and John but only that the laws in the commandments will change. This is why James The Great had the authority to change the laws of blood sacrifice along with many other laws of the rabbinic Jews.

As DISRAELI has taught, the laws of one culture may not be the laws of another culture simply because of the progress of cultures obedience to the commandments of the Creator. As Jesus taught the adulterous woman. He forgave the sin and changed the law of man but warned that the command was still present. The commandments are eternal because they are The Most High and eventually the laws of men will become instilled as they learn the true meaning of the commands of the Creator.

My thanks to DISRAELI as a great teacher ---

a reply to: Seede

Doesn't that contradict Jesus when He said that He came not to change the law but to fulfill the law? Not in the least does that contradict the Creator. Jesus did not change the commandments in the law but to fulfill the understanding of the commandments in the law.

I would say he did not come to fulfill the laws of Moses in the first place...

What he fulfilled was the law of Love... which is called the royal law

Having lived his life entirely by said law... not by the laws of Moses

Heh.. I made "this thread" once.

Good times, good times.

a reply to: Akragon

I would say he did not come to fulfill the laws of Moses in the first place... What he fulfilled was the law of Love... which is called the royal law Having lived his life entirely by said law... not by the laws of Moses

Good point and agree.

People. Yeshi said...

'Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law?'

He emphasizes the laws of the OT all the time. The OT is as integrical to the NT. For Christians you cannot have one without the other.

Slavery has never been abolished in the OT!!

Using example of ohh its a different culture so... is asinine, were talking gods laws.

An all perfect all knowing loving god that knows everything from the start would not go down the demonic path of the Christian god.

So if Yeshi picks out a law and says thats wrong... was god wrong?

Sorry cant respond in full as im about to start work.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
So if Yeshi picks out a law and says thats wrong... was god wrong?

No, he is saying that particular law did not come from God.
That is why it is so important to understand the mixed origin of the laws.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hay DISRAELI.

So where does Yeshi say a particular law is not from god? Which ones does he specify. Povide a list and bible verses.

The Laws of Moses he agrees with. He said so himself. Or did Yeshi lie?

So which laws specifically does he say its not from god and where is this in the bible.

Happy to throw out these for argument sakes and go with the ones Yeshi didnt absolve.

Coomba98