I don’t think cmkeller cares too much what Jesus said. I guess I should have been more precise and said the the OT didn’t get any less harsh, but, thankfully, the people did.
To be fair, nor do many Christians.
If they change who they follow based on any given situation in order to follow the path they already decided is right, then of course that’s picking and choosing. But if they choose one whom they follow in all circumstances and do not change that situationally, which I believe is the way most sincere religious believers follow their religion, that is not “picking and choosing.”
Thank you, I doubt I could have done that any better.
American law makes distinctions as to which religious claims are “valid” all the time (e.g. someone claiming conscientious objector status will be scrutinized to distinguish between a valid religious claim and an excuse to avoid getting sent into combat).
That’s not really accurate, either - the old testament has numerous safeguards for the accused, including a requirement for two witnesses, a high burden of proof, and numerous opportunities to present a defense. See Mishnah Sanhedrin, chapters 5-6, and for various limitations on the scope of capital crimes, chapter 7. See also the accompanying debates from the Gemara, tractate Sanhedrin.
As one tangible example, the punishment of stoning given in Deuteronomy 22:23-24,
In the case of a virgin who is engaged to someone —if another man comes upon her in town and lies with her,
you shall take the two of them out to the gate of that town and stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry for help in the town, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you will sweep away evil from your midst.
Is limited quite explicitly by the above cited Jewish law to situations where the betrothed girl is between 12 and 12 1/2 years old, where there are two witnesses, where 12 out of 23 judges of the Sanhedrin (which no longer exists, by the way - meaning there can be no more legal stonings) have found the accused guilty, etc.
~Max
Yes it is. It had a certain level of harshness and it hasn’t changed. Just because it always had rules about who should be stoned to death doesn’t change the fact that lots of people should be stoned these days (and, not in the fun weed way). Saying that you don’t need to do that because of whatever is extra-biblical, picking and choosing.
Yeah, I dunno that killing a 12 year girl for not struggling enough during a rape is point toward leniency.
And as usual, people arguing details of Jewish teachings on Saturday 
The reason I cited the Mishna and Gemara is because it details the rationale of ancient rabbis (c. 100-200 AD for Mishna, 300-500 AD for Gemara) who interpret the Mosaic law much less harshly than a literal reading (esp. of verses in isolation) would entail. One of the points you made was that it is only modern sensibilities that cause people to interpret the Bible less harshly. I am countering that with ancient sources. Furthermore their rationale is purportedly based on exegesis of the Tanakh, and they often show their work. I.e. the requirement for two witnesses in capital cases is there in Numbers 35:30 (and Deuteronomy 17:6 too), just in a different chapter. Finally, for Orthodox Jews such as you were addressing when I first responded to you, these interpretations are canonical.
~Max
In what situation would two witnesses testify that they saw the girl didn’t cry for help when raped? (The answer is none)
~Max
So all the dude has to do is bring a couple of accomplices along?
Yes, about 1,000 years after Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written. Just because they started picking and choosing a while back doesn’t mean they weren’t picking and choosing.
The witnesses have to be upright citizens, meaning they would not stand by idly and let a rape occur. They also must confront the accused within seconds of the crime occuring, and the accused must have responded. Furthermore they must be willing to serve as executioners.
(This is the Orthodox interpretation, but it’s not a point of disagreement among the sects, as far as I know)
~Max
What, do you categorically reject all forms of hermeneutics as excuses to justify preexisting bias? Is it all just picking and choosing to you?
~Max
Rabbinical Judaism is in many ways the product of Jewish life in exile, so the reduction in importance of some aspects of Jewish law - especially those related to the priestly class (which is very tied to the Temple in Kerusalem), to crime and punishment, or to sacrifices - makes a ton of sense. But it is also very clearly a shift from pre-Rabinnical Judaism, which was a much more centralized faith.
Also, it’s not like Second Temple Era Judaism (which already had been transformed by exile once) was identical to the proto-Judaism practiced when Israel and Judah were independent kingdoms or under Egyptian rule.
But these particular principals related to capital punishment were in place before the destruction of the second temple (even if not reduced to writing). And the source material - Deuteronomy - was written during the Babylonian exile, after the destruction of the first temple.
~Max
To me? It’s all ridiculous. But, the original statement was that not all religious people pick and choose their Bible verses. So, the whole discussion (tangent, I guess) was over whether there really are people who follow the bible as written.
My opinion as before is that hermaneutics can be consistent with following the bible as written. For example, if one verse says gay sex between men is punishable by stoning, and another verse says two witnesses are required to convict anyone of a capital offense, the latter verse makes the former less harsh by restricting punishment to a subset of applicable situations. It wouldn’t necessarily be an excuse to soften the bigotry inherent in the bible, it could be genuine religious belief consistent with sola scriptura (or the Jewish equivalent of Karaitism; traditional Rabbinic Judaism treats the Oral Law as authoritative).
~Max
From a Jewish perspective, saying that the Talmud is “extra-biblical” is like telling a Christian the New Testament is “extra-biblical”. Traditionally, both the Torah and the Talmud were given to Moses on Sinai, and even Jews who no longer literally believe that accept the Talmud as being equally authoritative.
From a more secular perspective, yes, obviously the rabbis who wrote the Talmud bent over backwards to find excuses to not obey the most barbaric of the Torah laws. Where the Torah prescribes the death penalty for all sorts of stuff, the Talmud piles on restrictions and exceptions to the point of making the death penalty practically impossible to ever administer. I, for one, applaud this development.