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 ?

[1213]

...The "rules" have already been given:...

Why be a hypocrite and ignore this love your neighbor rule?

you shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

Who said anything about kidnapping? Just breed your own lifetime slaves, (via Exodus 21:4).

Keeping someone against his will, is the same as kidnapping.

Why be a hypocrite and pretend that a slave should be regarded as your neighbour. Besides that is the NT...

It is Leviticus that says so, which is in OT. And neighbor is anyone next to you, because no limits given in the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The "rules" have already been given:...

Why be a hypocrite and ignore this love your neighbor rule?

you shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

Who said anything about kidnapping? Just breed your own lifetime slaves, (via Exodus 21:4).

Keeping someone against his will, is the same as kidnapping.

Why be a hypocrite and pretend that a slave should be regarded as your neighbour. Besides that is the NT...

It is Leviticus that says so, which is in OT. And neighbor is anyone next to you, because no limits given in the Bible.

Ok, but that doesn't alter the point, which is that a foreign and therefore chattel, slave is Not treated like your neighbour, whether Israelite or resident foreigner.Limits given in the Bible which is a foreign slave is your property for life and can be willed to your children, and likely has no rights as the rules about treatment arguably apply only ti Israelite slaves.

[POI]

...Absolutely no one would volunteer for lifetime chattel slavery. Hence, you must adhere to option(s) 1) and/or option 2). This is exactly why you are a cherry picker. You have to be to retain such 'faith' in the Bible.

No, I don't have to, because there is no intelligent reason to accept your baseless claims.

My response(s) are anything but baseless. Selecting option 3) is rational. Selecting options 1) and/or 2), are not rationale. The "golden rule" is completely incompatible with the rules given for chattel slavery. Further, since the 'golden rule' is not one of the Bible's 10 commandments, it carries no more or less favor vs. any of the listed rules pertaining to chattel slavery. Hence, the complete contradiction. The Bible is to be rejected, due to illogic alone. But rather than to reject the Bible, you instead ignore and/or rationalize the verse(s) you do not wish were in the Bible. This is what makes you a cherry picker.

Hence, the reason you have opted to go with the 'nuh-uh' response alone

[oldbadger]

At this point, thus far, it's obvious Christians have no viable rebuttal for the provided debate topic. Christians must admit that the NT was comprised of a cherry-picked OT. Maybe some Christians will soon come along to challenge this current assessment, but I will not hold my breath?

To me, this topic illuminates two points:

1) To the OP topic, yes. Christians certainly picked and chose the bits they liked, and later made a "version 2" accordingly - (i.e.) the NT. However,, further still, Christians continue to rationalize and/or ignore the bits they don't like from "version 2" as well. These folks are classified as 'cafeteria Christians.' TRANSPONDER, I, and others, are repeatedly reminded of this classic 7-minute video:



2) Orthodox Jews, who follow the Torah alone, must also pick and choose within "Version 1". Example(s) have been laid out with my exchange with 1213, via with the topics of women wearing men's clothing, eating pork products, chattel slavery, wearing wool and linen together at the same time, eating any shellfish, making sure your son(s) are circumcised, ever working on the Sabbath, always avoid eating certain foods during Passover, etc........

I agree with you that Christians do cherry pick from the Mosaic Laws, but worse than that they cherry pick to suit their moods. For example, the self righteous Christian who grasps to the 'No effeminate dressing' or 'No Gay love' verses might be quite happy to keep a lover outside of the marital home. etc etc

But I smile when I think of Mosaic laws such as 'men wear men's clothing, women wear women's' because that is exactly what tends to happen in our schools, our Government Houses, our fashions, etc etc. If a male cabinet member should wear a skirt in to the UK Parliament then I cannot guess what the outcome might be.

[POI]

But I smile when I think of Mosaic laws such as 'men wear men's clothing, women wear women's' because that is exactly what tends to happen in our schools, our Government Houses, our fashions, etc etc. If a male cabinet member should wear a skirt in to the UK Parliament then I cannot guess what the outcome might be.

At the end of the day, these are all likely contrived of human created laws alone - (both the OT and/or the NT). OT "laws" are also sometimes not very specific. In fact, some of them are downright haphazard. Take the topic I brought forth with 1213 regarding chattel slavery.

As you pointed out earlier, if you give your coat to your wife for the rest of the evening, to keep her warm, you may very well be in the same direct "violation" as a male deciding to wear a skirt to the UK Parliament. IMO, the Bible was written by ancients who invoked whatever were the 'moral' and cultural norms of the era. Many humans believe our 'moral' intuitions are God given. If this is the case, then why do we not all fundamentally agree about some of these topics? The theist will argue that 'evil' is to blame. But this is just likely defending one fairy tale with another fairy tale. (i.e.) 'God' and 'Satan' do exist, and are the culprits.

Some 'rules' are still the "moral" and "cultural norms" of today, and some, maybe not-so-much...

[oldbadger]

But I smile when I think of Mosaic laws such as 'men wear men's clothing, women wear women's' because that is exactly what tends to happen in our schools, our Government Houses, our fashions, etc etc. If a male cabinet member should wear a skirt in to the UK Parliament then I cannot guess what the outcome might be.

At the end of the day, these are all likely contrived of human created laws alone - (both the OT and/or the NT). OT "laws" are also sometimes not very specific. In fact, some of them are downright haphazard. Take the topic I brought forth with 1213 regarding chattel slavery.

As you pointed out earlier, if you give your coat to your wife for the rest of the evening, to keep her warm, you may very well be in the same direct "violation" as a male deciding to wear a skirt to the UK Parliament. IMO, the Bible was written by ancients who invoked whatever were the 'moral' and cultural norms of the era. Many humans believe our 'moral' intuitions are God given. If this is the case, then why do we not all fundamentally agree about some of these topics? The theist will argue that 'evil' is to blame. But this is just likely defending one fairy tale with another fairy tale. (i.e.) 'God' and 'Satan' do exist, and are the culprits.

Some 'rules' are still the "moral" and "cultural norms" of today, and some, maybe not-so-much...

For sure, the Mosaic laws were (at that time) a brilliant piece of legislation for the success, health, growth, security, safety and cohesion of an entire people.
And that they could be figured out and written by humans is just a fine example of human brilliance.
The religious mumbo-jumbo around evil, sin and hellfire is just that, and all that sin meant back then was 'failure'. Sin lead to sickness, weakness, lack of cohesion, insecurity, dangers and failure.
Sin = Failure, but you won't convince the theists I'm sad to say.

[1213]

My response(s) are anything but baseless. Selecting option 3) is rational. Selecting options 1) and/or 2), are not rationale. The "golden rule" is completely incompatible with the rules given for chattel slavery. Further, since the 'golden rule' is not one of the Bible's 10 commandments, it carries no more or less favor vs. any of the listed rules pertaining to chattel slavery. Hence, the complete contradiction. The Bible is to be rejected, due to illogic alone. But rather than to reject the Bible, you instead ignore and/or rationalize the verse(s) you do not wish were in the Bible. This is what makes you a cherry picker.

That is funny. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word cherry picker. All the rules in the Bible are compatible. And I think none of them should be ignored, as you seem to do.

[1213]

Ok, but that doesn't alter the point, which is that a foreign and therefore chattel, slave is Not treated like your neighbour, ...

I think they should be. Bible doesn't say that the slaves are not neighbors.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok, but that doesn't alter the point, which is that a foreign and therefore chattel, slave is Not treated like your neighbour, ...

I think they should be. Bible doesn't say that the slaves are not neighbors.

Yes ur does. Lev ."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.
46You can will 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 not how you deal with neighbours, Israelite or foreigner.

You will not of course try to pull the 'It doesn't not use those exact words' trick. That would only make you are your case and your religion look bad.

[POI]

My response(s) are anything but baseless. Selecting option 3) is rational. Selecting options 1) and/or 2), are not rationale. The "golden rule" is completely incompatible with the rules given for chattel slavery. Further, since the 'golden rule' is not one of the Bible's 10 commandments, it carries no more or less favor vs. any of the listed rules pertaining to chattel slavery. Hence, the complete contradiction. The Bible is to be rejected, due to illogic alone. But rather than to reject the Bible, you instead ignore and/or rationalize the verse(s) you do not wish were in the Bible. This is what makes you a cherry picker.

That is funny. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word cherry picker. All the rules in the Bible are compatible. And I think none of them should be ignored, as you seem to do.

I logically cannot be a cherry picker because I do not adhere to this book for advice. You do. I'm simply pointing out that some Bible verses are logically incompatible with other Bible verses. Case/point, the 'golden rule' is utterly incompatible with the expressed allowances for lifetime chattel slavery practices. You (ignore and/or rationalize) the parts of the Bible you do not like or agree with... (i.e.) the stated allowances for chattel slavery, etc.... I'm not a mind reader, but I'm pretty sure when you read over all the parts about expressed "slavery", you might get a bit uncomfortable I do not blame you.

Jesus later comes along, says nothing to abolish such prior practices, and instead kind of further reinforces slavery practices. This is unfortunate for you because now you must go into ultra spin mode. I, on the other hand, simply elect for option 3) - admit contradiction. Where-as you opt for 1) and/or 2).