Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

[oldbadger]

Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

It most certainly did!
Would anybody like to challenge that ?

[oldbadger]

They didn't have air fryers and microwaves, 1213.....

There's a song there....somewhere.

So Moses had a microwave,
He cooked his meals so true...
And every piece of flesh he gave,
Was cooked right through and through.'

It was possible to cook properly, but it was too easy to cut corners.

Too easy, and far too dangerous.
The danger food I know better is shellfish, and 'shellfish poison paralysis' is as deadly today as back then.
Oysters that we collect have to be kept in ultra violet light for 3 days before they can be safely eaten.

[1213]

Yes, but then we are back to using human understanding or at least judgement, for doing things, not 'The Bible says so'. Especially not the OT which was made obsolete by the new.

Whatever people do, they do it by human understanding. Even if you choose the "the Bible says so", it is by human understanding that you choose to do so.

I think Bible is about helping people to get better understanding of good and right. And that is why OT is not obsolete. And I think everything said in the OT is still true and valid and NT confirms it.

[1213]

but Bible doesn't say they are the reason for calling them unclean.

Yes, it does, in Leviticus 11: (i.e.):

Leviticus 11:3-8 states -> "You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 4 "There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

That tells the properties of the animals that are unclean. But, it doesn't say the said properties are the reason.

I think all the laws are good, and it would be good to go by them.

Then you must think that chattel slavery is also good.

I think the laws are good. That does not mean that I think slavery is good.

From the same book of 'laws' and 'allowances', Leviticus, comes the following instruction:

25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

************************

This is a form of chattel slavery, and God thinks it is good, otherwise, the Bible would not condone it. Do you think condoning or allowing this form of chattel slavery is good? Or, is there another rationalization coming?

Firstly it is important to know, what do you think an Israelite is?

...Christians are cherry pickers. Thanks for demonstrating this...

And you are funny. Cherry picking what suits you and then calling others cherry pickers.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, but then we are back to using human understanding or at least judgement, for doing things, not 'The Bible says so'. Especially not the OT which was made obsolete by the new.

Whatever people do, they do it by human understanding. Even if you choose the "the Bible says so", it is by human understanding that you choose to do so.

I think Bible is about helping people to get better understanding of good and right. And that is why OT is not obsolete. And I think everything said in the OT is still true and valid and NT confirms it.

Ok, terrible typos, which I'll correct.

They do it by human understanding, including judging the Bible and God's deeds as either good and ti be wagged about as a virtue - signal flag, or classified as bad and having to be excused or blamed on someone else.

And even the gambit that the bible is a good moral guide won't work, even the NT.
At best, it is the best of human moral ideals that many cultures can do, and try to propose a social format for doing it, where they choose a religion to do it or a political doctrine or just humans, Morality is no validation of the Bible and Christianity, and has not been for decades, but Bible - apologists keep on trying to argue it. Now..there's something else i spotted that may need a little righteous anger

but Bible doesn't say they are the reason for calling them unclean.

Yes, it does, in Leviticus 11: (i.e.):

Leviticus 11:3-8 states -> "You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 4 "There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

That tells the properties of the animals that are unclean. But, it doesn't say the said properties are the reason.

I think all the laws are good, and it would be good to go by them.

Then you must think that chattel slavery is also good.

I think the laws are good. That does not mean that I think slavery is good.

From the same book of 'laws' and 'allowances', Leviticus, comes the following instruction:

25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

************************

This is a form of chattel slavery, and God thinks it is good, otherwise, the Bible would not condone it. Do you think condoning or allowing this form of chattel slavery is good? Or, is there another rationalization coming?

Firstly it is important to know, what do you think an Israelite is?

...Christians are cherry pickers. Thanks for demonstrating this...

And you are funny. Cherry picking what suits you and then calling others cherry pickers.

Yes. Your behaviour here is a disgrace. And tops over because you dare to laugh at another when you are a really good bad example of biblical fiddling, denial and confusion. I could write more but I'll let that lie. But the Leviticus passage surely says not to eat the critters unclean because of 'properties' as you say, but is is ludicrous to pretend those properties are NOT the reason they are not to be eaten. If there were other reasons, surely it would say so. This is reason and being sensible in Interpretation, not appealing to ludicrous evasions that make no sense.

It is not about what you can deny, but the case you can make. But Bible apologists never understand this

It is ludicrously denialist to maintain that the laws are good when one at least of the laws (slavery) is not good. Do you not see that you are beyond cherry - picking and into denial and even beyond into apologetics of the Third Kind :- sauce.

I am not here to pinch - hit for POI but I'm sure he won't bite at the pettifogging lawyer - trick of derailing onto discussing what an Israelite is or even was.

No, don't you dare, don't even think to dare, trying to mock and laugh at one of your opponents here, not after the wretched, denialist, contradictory and downright ludicrous arguments you have presented in the past months. And have a very nice week - end.

[POI]

but Bible doesn't say they are the reason for calling them unclean.

Yes, it does, in Leviticus 11: (i.e.):

Leviticus 11:3-8 states -> "You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 4 "There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

That tells the properties of the animals that are unclean. But, it doesn't say the said properties are the reason.

Are you for real? The reason(s) are listed. And even IF there was no reason(s), the verses still tells you that you must not do it, Which means there is no exceptions to the instruction/rule/law. Many of these rules have little to no reason(s) attached. And many of these laws tell you not to do it, which means there is no exception(s) to the instruction. And yet, for some reason, you have opted to provide an exception for this one? This is why you are a cherry picker. Maybe you like the taste of pork, and you are looking for a way to spin it... I do not blame you. Bacon is delicious. So, either way, due to the Bible's reason(s) given, <or>, simply because the Bible says so, you are not to eat pigs ever, period! And yet, we skeptics read as you cherry pick and/or rationalize the Bible.

I think the laws are good. That does not mean that I think slavery is good.

Your response is illogical. The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Attributes of a chattel slave include being a master's property, for life. Chattel slavery also includes being allowed to be passed down to your next of kin as inherited property. Chattel slavery also means they can be beaten with impunity. This means you too logically think such condoned chattel slavery practices are good. But nice try attempting to spin things....

Firstly it is important to know, what do you think an Israelite is?

Your question is irrelevant. The Bible sanctions acts of chattel slavery, period. Please, again, stop trying to rationalize things. Either 1) state the Bible's version of sanctioned/condoned chattel slavery practices are good, <or>, 2) admit you do NOT agree with all of the Bible's pronouncements. Do you select 1) or 2)??? You are now caught in quite the pickle with either answer.

[TRANSPONDER]

Nicely done. It does not matter what the Israelites back then (nor indeed now) reckon an Israelite was; all that matter is that they differentiated the Israelite from foreign slaves in what could be done with and to them. And what you could do with non - Israelite slaves was pretty much what you liked; you could own them for life and will them to your children along with the furniture and livestock.

This was chattel slavery, in no way different from that during the Confederacy. Unless one thinks slavery is ok or tries to pretend it is somehow ok because we are obliged to pay taxes, slaver is considered morally bad, and if it is bad now, it was bad then, and id the Fod thought differently na back then, God's morality is as Relative as human, and wit less excuse, and if that God didn't know, it was not deserving of reverence then and isn't now, even if it did exist, which (for other reasons) I don't think it does

[1213]

...And yet, for some reason, you have opted to provide an exception for this one? This is why you are a cherry picker. Maybe you like the taste of pork, and you are looking for a way to spin it... I do not blame you. Bacon is delicious. So, either way, due to the Bible's reason(s) given, <or>, simply because the Bible says so, you are not to eat pigs ever, period! And yet, we skeptics read as you cherry pick and/or rationalize the Bible.

I have tried to explain why some people think it is ok to eat pork. I think it is possible that they have misinterpreted the text and therefore I think it is better not to eat pork.

The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Attributes of a chattel slave include being a master's property, for life. Chattel slavery also includes being allowed to be passed down to your next of kin as inherited property. Chattel slavery also means they can be beaten with impunity. This means you too logically think such condoned chattel slavery practices are good....

You could be right, if we would cherry pick like you do, only the one line from the Bible and ignore the higher commandments. But, by your logic, you could as well say that anyone can be beaten with impunity, not only slaves.

Firstly it is important to know, what do you think an Israelite is?

Your question is irrelevant. ...

It is a very crucial question. If you can't answer to that, then you can't know who have the rights or duties the law gives. But, obviously the question leads to a place that is not nice for your position.

[oldbadger]

I have tried to explain why some people think it is ok to eat pork. I think it is possible that they have misinterpreted the text and therefore I think it is better not to eat pork.

Thousands of years ago the average home had rather primitive cooking facilities = pork dangerous.
Today most homes have very efficient cooking facilities = pork safe.

It's as easy as that.

You could be right, if we would cherry pick like you do, only the one line from the Bible and ignore the higher commandments. But, by your logic, you could as well say that anyone can be beaten with impunity, not only slaves.

Could you give a 'lower' Mosaic law, a 'medium' Mosaic law and a 'higher' Mosaic law?

[TRANSPONDER]

...And yet, for some reason, you have opted to provide an exception for this one? This is why you are a cherry picker. Maybe you like the taste of pork, and you are looking for a way to spin it... I do not blame you. Bacon is delicious. So, either way, due to the Bible's reason(s) given, <or>, simply because the Bible says so, you are not to eat pigs ever, period! And yet, we skeptics read as you cherry pick and/or rationalize the Bible.

I have tried to explain why some people think it is ok to eat pork. I think it is possible that they have misinterpreted the text and therefore I think it is better not to eat pork.

The Bible condones forms of chattel slavery. Attributes of a chattel slave include being a master's property, for life. Chattel slavery also includes being allowed to be passed down to your next of kin as inherited property. Chattel slavery also means they can be beaten with impunity. This means you too logically think such condoned chattel slavery practices are good....

You could be right, if we would cherry pick like you do, only the one line from the Bible and ignore the higher commandments. But, by your logic, you could as well say that anyone can be beaten with impunity, not only slaves.

Firstly it is important to know, what do you think an Israelite is?

Your question is irrelevant. ...

It is a very crucial question. If you can't answer to that, then you can't know who have the rights or duties the law gives. But, obviously the question leads to a place that is not nice for your position.

The matter of eating pork is then done for practical reasons, and by individual judgement. You have deemed the Bible as irrelevant and any non - believer.

It is not cherry - picking to point to one passage saying that foreign slaves can be enslaved for life, as property. That other bits of the Bible seem to say something else merely shows that the Bible is inconsistent and its' believers cherry - pick whatever suits them.

Whatever the Hebrews back then or indeed now though an Israelite was or was not is irrelevant. Whatever they deemed was Israelite, was not, as a slave, treated like slaves considered foreigners, need not be released after 7 years but were property for life. Your demand that an irrelevant question be answered, or the bible critic somehow loses the entire argument. This is a palpable ploy to wriggle out of the fact that the Bible endorses slavery, and chattel slavery, too, for life, for non - Israelites, whatever criterion the Hebrews used back then to determine who was or was not, an Israelite.

It should be obvious to all what attempt at evasion is being made here, and I for one am truly thankful I am not a Bible - believers and don't have to abuse my brain to try to excuse what is inexcusable.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have tried to explain why some people think it is ok to eat pork. I think it is possible that they have misinterpreted the text and therefore I think it is better not to eat pork.

Thousands of years ago the average home had rather primitive cooking facilities = pork dangerous.
Today most homes have very efficient cooking facilities = pork safe.

It's as easy as that.

You could be right, if we would cherry pick like you do, only the one line from the Bible and ignore the higher commandments. But, by your logic, you could as well say that anyone can be beaten with impunity, not only slaves.

Could you give a 'lower' Mosaic law, a 'medium' Mosaic law and a 'higher' Mosaic law?

It is done by cherry picking and quoting out of context. For example, 'Be perfect, just as your father is perfect' could be dragged out to dismiss all the evils and immorality in the Bible. Or OT, as not all Bible Apologists are shameless, some passage about treating foreigners amongst them kindly. Sure - if they were neighbours or traders, but not if they were chattel slaves. That is, if one cherry picks and ignores wider context.