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]

What? Obligatory conversion doe immigrants? No, they would be foreigners - there is a text about treating them decently - but they would not be Israelites nor live by Jewish laws, apart from not keeping pigs. There are limits.

For example men would have had to be circumcised.

He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen. 17:12-13

The slaves would have had to live also by the same rules as others in Israel, which I think makes them Israelites.

Treating foreigners that live amongst you decently is one thing, but treatment of slaves is not the same. The laws protect only Israelites who are slaves, not foreign slaves. They are owned as property for life and you can treat them how one likes.

And this is why it would be important to know, how an Israelite is defined. If it is by heritage, then it can be very difficult to determine who is. And if it is by custom, then also the slaves would be counted.

[1213]

As already stated, such rules have no hierarchy.

Even if so, I think the "higher" rules also should be followed. Or what say you, is it not hypocrite to cherry pick the one line you like, and ignore the parts that limits how you can treat others?

This means your stated "golden rule" neither (outweighs or outranks) any other rule. Hence, we see a direct contradiction:

"God given rule": Treat others like you want to be treated
"God given rule": You may keep slaves, as property, for life. You may also beat them with impunity. You may pass them down to your kids.

The only way to 'resolve' this contraction is to 1) cherry pick or 2) ignore one rule to favor the other rule. Such chattel slavery is evil, according to you, otherwise, you would not be giving the responses you are giving. Hence, you are rationalizing. and/or cherry picking. Unfortunately for the Christian, what you are doing here is really the is the ONLY option you've got.

The both can be true at the same time. By the law one can have slaves, but he must treat them according to the other rules. This means, if the slave would ask you to let him go, you would do so, if that is what you would like to be done to you in the same situation.

If one obeys all the rules in the Bible, I don't think he can keep anyone as a slave against the persons will. But, it is possible, if the person accepts it and wants that. I think this is supported also by the idea that one cannot kidnap anyone.

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16

If you keep someone as a slave against his will, I think it is the same as kidnapping, and you would deserve death.

[TRANSPONDER]

What? Obligatory conversion doe immigrants? No, they would be foreigners - there is a text about treating them decently - but they would not be Israelites nor live by Jewish laws, apart from not keeping pigs. There are limits.

For example men would have had to be circumcised.

He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen. 17:12-13

The slaves would have had to live also by the same rules as others in Israel, which I think makes them Israelites.

Treating foreigners that live amongst you decently is one thing, but treatment of slaves is not the same. The laws protect only Israelites who are slaves, not foreign slaves. They are owned as property for life and you can treat them how one likes.

And this is why it would be important to know, how an Israelite is defined. If it is by heritage, then it can be very difficult to determine who is. And if it is by custom, then also the slaves would be counted.

No, no, no. I don't know whether you are unable to follow a discussion, or you are trying to misdirect. How one defines what is an Israelite and what is a foreigner is irrelevant to the morality of chattel slavery, endorsed by the Bible, but only for slaves where were not considered Israelites, however that was defined or determined.

Analogy, the morality of the death penalty is nothing to do with how murder is defined.

[POI]

Even if so, I think the "higher" rules also should be followed. Or what say you, is it not hypocrite to cherry pick the one line you like, and ignore the parts that limits how you can treat others?

As already explained, outside maybe the 10 Commandments, there is no 'higher' or "lower" rule(s) in the Torah. Therefore, Leviticus 19:34 carries no hierarchy over Leviticus 25:44-46, or vice versa. You have, what looks to be (3) options available:

1) rationalize the verse(s) you do not like
2) ignore the verse(s) you do not like
3) admit contradiction

So far, you have demonstrated both options 1) and 2) in spades. I am not bound to this book. Hence, I can simply point out option 3) is likely, as I have absolutely no skin in this game. I do not feel the need to protect the Bible. I can just call it as I see it.

The both can be true at the same time.

False, they are incompatible with one another. No one would freely and willingly choose to be someone else's property for life.

By the law one can have slaves, but he must treat them according to the other rules.

The "rules" have already been given:

1) Just don't kill them
2) Just don't knock out their eyes/teeth
3) You may keep them for life as your property
4) If slaves have offspring, the master gets a new freebie lifetime slave
5) The slave can be inherited by the master's children
6) The master is not to be punished for beating them, (as long as rules (1) and (2) are not violated).

This means, if the slave would ask you to let him go, you would do so, if that is what you would like to be done to you in the same situation.

See my point above, where I already stated "no one would freely and willingly choose to be someone else's property for life.". The fact that the Bible instructs that the master can keep any human, as property, for life, then means it is not the slave's choice to leave. Remember, differing rules exists for differing folks. The rules for free men differ from enslaved men. The rules differ for Israelites verses not Israelites. The rules differ for enslaved men verses enslaves women. And so on and so on....

If one obeys all the rules in the Bible, I don't think he can keep anyone as a slave against the persons will. But, it is possible, if the person accepts it and wants that. I think this is supported also by the idea that one cannot kidnap anyone.

As already stated above, twice, no one would willfully volunteer for such nonsense. Hence, the Bible instructs such rules for the master to do so anyways....

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16

If you keep someone as a slave against his will, I think it is the same as kidnapping, and you would deserve death.

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

[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.

[POI]

Please keep in mind the (3) available options:

1) rationalize some verse(s)
2) ignore some verse(s)
3) admit contraction with some verse(s)

I opt for option (3). And viola, all problems solved. You, on the other hand, are the sultan of spin.

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

I already addressed this thoroughly. The "golden rule" is completely incompatible. This is why I choose option 3).

You instead opt for option(s) 1) or 2). Protecting the Bible, at all costs, is your mission.

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

Then again, Exodus 21:4 is incompatible and/or contradictory. 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.

[oldbadger]

...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.

Paul explained how Christians can keep slaves.

[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 which is virtually a new Rule book written by new people. At least, whatever you may believe or pretend to (as i have seen you present different hypotheses to see which one might stick) your arguments are clearly inadequate and won't convince anyone other that n someone who wants to be convinced. That is how this debate works.'

You say that keeping someone against their will is as bad as kidnapping. So the Bible should have condemned owning slaves...in fact it does, but only for Hebrews, it does not care about how one treats foreign slaves.They are not your neighbour. The Hebrew may buy slaves from them and keep them for life. This is what the Biblical rule book says.

I'm not even sure the minimum rule even applies to foreign slaves, but only the Hebrew ones.

I checked all the references the Christian apologists could come up with and the relevant one is about how one treats their slave. The whole section Exodus 21) is about treatment of Hebrews. Does it cover foreign slaves? Evidently niot because the passage about the release after years 7 tricking a Hebrew into becoming a chattel slave cannot apply to Foreign slaves who are chattels no question. So the treatment of slaves does not cover foreign slaves. This is a lie and a cheat and an insult to the reader as much as pretending that treating resident foreigners well or returning stolen slaves is in any way altering the fact that the Bible endorses chattel (lifetime) slavery and without any rules what the owner can do to them.

[POI]

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........

[1213]

...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.