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 ?

[POI]

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.

If you actually knew what the Bible clearly states, you would have already expressed that you cannot eat pork under any circumstances. You would not have instead stated, i(paraphrased) - "it's safer not to eat pork, just in case." Your initial response would have instead simply been, (paraphrased) - "anyone who consumes pork is breaking the law."

You could be right, if we would cherry pick like you do, only the one line from the Bible and ignore the higher commandments.

I already informed you. Outside maybe the 10 Commandments, I doubt there exists some official hierarchy ranking system for these laws.

And yes, I am right. The Bible is clear about the expressed legal terms for chattel slavery. You did not answer my question, in the previous post, so I will re-ask:

Do you think the terms for legalized chattel slavery practices are good? (yes or no). If you say (yes), this means you think owning another human, as property for life, is 'good'. Which makes you look kind of 'bad'. But the fact that you are dancing all around it, means you likely do not appreciate the fact that your beloved Bible condones such activities. If you instead think this instruction is 'bad', then you contradict yourself about stating that all Biblical pronouncements are 'good.'

But, by your logic, you could as well say that anyone can be beaten with impunity, not only slaves.

False. Exodus 21:12-14 explain further.

12 "Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

But, if you are deemed a slave, beatings are condoned with complete impunity, provided you do not kill them, or knock out their eyes or teeth - (as expressed in Ex 21:26-27). This is likely why whipping them on the back was to be the accepted method of punishment. Whipping their back would not violate Mosaic law. Remember, the objective of the slave was to serve as cheap labor. Killing them, or knocking out their eye, would deem such cheap labor to be worthless. But whipping them on the back, as needed to maximize their labor efforts, is perfectly fine with the Bible God (i.e.):

"20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

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.

All your question demonstrates is that you already agree that owning anyone as lifetime slave property, is 'bad'. Hence, the reason you want to try and rationalize things or try to express 'context'. I do not blame you. I suspect, as the title suggests, you'd rather cherry pick, or ignore the bits you do not like.

[POI]

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?

Yes, these ancient primitives likely tried to do the best they could. However, such a powerful God would already know that someday, pork would be safer to eat. Which is why many roll the dice and eat it today, after obtaining further knowledge about safe consumption practices. What would have caused pause for later doubters and skeptics to this text, would be if the verse states "pork products are safer to eat as long as the internal temperature reaches X." And then would have provided instructions accordingly. Reading such a text, from 2500 years ago, might raise an eyebrow or two. But instead, in reading these ancient texts, there looks to be really nothing in there which could not have been invented by mere human thinking alone, at the time.

And yes, I've asked 1213 this before too. Outside maybe the 10 Commandments, I do not think there exists some official hierarchy raking system of law(s).

[POI]

...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.

Yes! And to place the cherry on top of the whipped cream cover chocolate sundae, 1213 completely avoided my question about whether or not 1213 agrees with the Bible's allowances for chattel slavery, which means we already know the answer. Meaning, 1213 would rather ignore the fact that the Bible condones a practice 1213 does not like.

[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.

Yes! And to place the cherry on top of the whipped cream cover chocolate sundae, 1213 completely avoided my question about whether or not 1213 agrees with the Bible's allowances for chattel slavery, which means we already know the answer. Meaning, 1213 would rather ignore the fact that the Bible condones a practice 1213 does not like.

Yes and it is not the first time i have detected that our Pal knows what is destroying his argument as he deliberately evades it. I noted that with the complete combined resurrection account with (as I picked out) omitting the contradictions he knew were there. Later he denied it, posted the whole thing and then re - sorted it to try to make the women meeting Jesus before they report to the disciples, shift to when Mary sees Jesus after the disciples had gone to the tomb. I understand that Faith believes that the Bible must be correct however it reads, so it must be altered to correct a misswriting, but I am glad that i do not have to think like that.

Take as an example babes and sucklings, which is a quote in Matthew that does not fit the OT passage so Jesus could not have said it, but it Does fit the Septuagint, which (with the virgin and two donkeys, and we have done the jokes) implies that Matthew could not read Hebrew nor understand the OT but got his text and misreadings from the Septuagint (evidence he was Greek, not a Jew, not matter what the Authorities claim). But then some poster said that the Dead sea scrolls confirmed the Septuagint (so Jesus could have quoted that version). But a later check showed that bit was missing so that poster had assumed that it agreed with Matthew. But then it was claimed that the Isaiah scroll we do have agrees with the Septuagint elsewhere. So that is pending research I shall have to get around to, sometime.

The point being that I want to assess the evidence fairly and not Read it just to suit what i want to believe.

[oldbadger]

And yes, I've asked 1213 this before too. Outside maybe the 10 Commandments, I do not think there exists some official hierarchy raking system of law(s).

Sure. Nor does there exist such ranking.

Any of the 613 laws ignored carried with them the risk of 'failure'. Sin = Failure... the Christian version of 'sin' is mumbo-jumbo imo.
And the reason why things went so badly wrong for the Israelites is that they were ignored. So many prophets lamented that.

[1213]

If you actually knew what the Bible clearly states, you would have already expressed that you cannot eat pork under any circumstances. ...

...As long as it is unclean.

Do you think the terms for legalized chattel slavery practices are good?

Only if person obeys all the rules given by God.

But, by your logic, you could as well say that anyone can be beaten with impunity, not only slaves.

False. Exodus 21:12-14 explain further....

Ok, so they cannot be beaten without impunity. thank you.

[1213]

...Whatever the Hebrews back then or indeed now though an Israelite was or was not is irrelevant. ...

I disagree. But, it is ok, if you can't define the word. Then I can say, all of the people living in Israel were Israelis and then all the rules for Israelis would also apply to all the slaves also.

[1213]

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?

Higher commandments means for example the ten commandments that were given as the condition in the covenant that was made through Moses.

Yahweh said to Moses, "Write you these words: for in accord-ance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." He was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread, nor drank water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Exod. 34:27-28

"you shall love your neighbor as yourself"
Lev. 19:18

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Matt. 22:36-40

[oldbadger]

Higher commandments means for example the ten commandments that were given as the condition in the covenant that was made through Moses.

Yahweh said to Moses, "Write you these words: for in accord-ance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." He was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread, nor drank water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Exod. 34:27-28

"you shall love your neighbor as yourself"
Lev. 19:18

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Matt. 22:36-40

Thank you for the above.
Of course for success each and every one of the 613 laws had to be kept or there could be failures. Sin lead to failures, in safety, security, health, strength, cohesian or success.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Whatever the Hebrews back then or indeed now though an Israelite was or was not is irrelevant. ...

I disagree. But, it is ok, if you can't define the word. Then I can say, all of the people living in Israel were Israelis and then all the rules for Israelis would also apply to all the slaves also.

You are surely teasing us. But you miss the point. I may have my own idea of what an Israelite is. but it is irrelevant. If everyone loving in Israel was an Israelite, then those living outside were Foreigners, and from them a Hebrew could buy slaves, and they were the property of the owner for life, they could be willed to children of the owner as property and you could do to them pretty much as you liked,

And this is endorsed by the OT; and again your efforts to mislead and bamboozle people about the Bible fall flat.