I’ll concede genocide and slavery.
BUT
The hell you say!
Abraham was willing to go along with it because so other deities of the time demanded human sacrifice. The G-d of Abraham explicitly states ‘no human sacrifice’.
Re`Rape
How do you get rape is “cool” from that?
If a man rapes a woman, thus ruining her chances for marriage, he must marry and support her and pay her a fine.
Re Unicorns
Any clue what the original Hebrew word is or what it actually means?
A quick google reveals that the Hebrew word is re’em. A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that it may have originally been a reference to a wild ox.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
An animal called the re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. “The allusions to the re’em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns (Job xxxix. 9–12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild mountain bull with large horns.”[13] This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.
The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) followed the Greek Septuagint (monokeros) and the Latin Vulgate (unicornis)[14] and employed unicorn to translate re’em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature. The American Standard Version translates this term “wild ox” in each case.
"God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."—Numbers 23:22
"God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."—Numbers 24:8
"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth."—Deuteronomy 33:17
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"—Job 39:9–12
"Save me from the lion's mouth; for thou hast heard me from the horns of unicorns."—Psalms 22:21
"He maketh them [the cedars of Lebanon] also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."—Psalms 29:6
"But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of the unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil."—Psalms 92:10
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with their bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."—Isaiah 34:7
The classical Jewish understanding of bible did not identify the Re’em animal as the unicorn. Instead, the Tahash animal (Exodus 25, 26, 35, 36 and 39; Numbers 4; and Ezekiel 16:10) was thought to be a kosher unicorn with a coat of many colors that only existed in biblical times.
[/QUOTE]
Did you miss the part about stoning the rape victim if she fails to cry for help?? (Which is still practiced in some places under Sharia Law, btw.)
If it’s a mistranslation, that means there’s an error in the Bible. Since most fundamentalist Believers claim that every single part of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, well, that’s a problem for them.
Which is why they all ignore it.
Regarding Abraham/Isaac, I’ll grant that it was a Test of Faith – but an unconscionably cruel test, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Hospitality in the ancient world was a very serious matter in all cultures I have heard about. You protected anyone under your own roof.
The “re’em” in Hebrew (oir at least in modern Hebrew) is the Oryx, a species of antelope native to the region.
No, it means that the KJV has an error. It’s a pretty half-assed translation, so I’m not surprised.
As to the OP:
*
“How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."*
Half-assed? Why do you say that? It used source texts that are inferior to what we have now, and the language is archaic, of course, but for what they had to work with, I think it’s a beautiful and accurate translation, and by any measure I would think, a skillful and careful one.
I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole - the KJV was definitely a product of its time, and I shouldn’t hold that against it. Still, it lacks much of the poetry of the original. It takes the raw and primal Hebrew of the Bible (or the OT, if you will) and, well, prettifies it - although, again, that may just be my modern perspective.
Fair enough!
So how are we supposed to know that the voice telling us to kill our child isn’t actually God?
Sensible people like you and I may be content with dismissing such trivial errors, but fundamentalists who believe every word of the Bible is Literal Truth (and many of them assert the KJV as the only true version) have a lot of explaining to do. That’s all I was saying, basically.
Meh…the story of David & Jonathan sounds to me like just a regular old bromance. 
This seems to be the basis of all sin, worshiping of other gods. Once you get to the actual ‘sinful’ act it’s already too late as the sin was committed long ago. The physical evidence of in this case homosexuality is just ‘evidence’ of worshiping other gods, not the sin itself, as I see it.
I thought that he was the only god? Are you saying there are/were others?
This.
In the passage, God is making these people do these thing:
*1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even **their women did change **the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. *
These people were hetero’s at first, they worshipped other Gods, God get’s upset and changes them into homosexuals. It’s not a condemnation of homosexuality per say.
The shellfish argument is a bad one to make, because Jewish dietary laws were specifically rescinded in the NT. In fact the first church council (the Council of Jerusalem) said that the only OT laws that were binding on Gentile Christians were “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:29)
Presumably “sexual immorality” would include homosexual sex based on Jewish mores of the time, but does not specifically call out homosexuality.
The words sometimes translated as “homosexuality” elsewhere in the NT are problematic and are not unambiguosly referring to gay sex between equal consenting partners.
Romans 1 is pretty clear in condemning homosexuality, IMO. But as pointed out above, it behooves the reader to continue on to chapter 2.
For me, the guiding principle is Romans 14:
Acts: 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
The only OT laws binding on Xians are those? So the NT allows me to charge interest, steal, make false oaths and murder? But no rare steaks.
Do parts of the NT forbid charging interest (even high amounts), stealing, making false oaths and murder?
Jesus has you covered:
So the Jewish god disapproved of Jephthah’s actions? (Judges 11:39) One can argue that it was against mosaic law, but there was no mention of the Jewish god’s disapproval after it happened.
And FWIW Paul agrees:
[QUOTE=Romans 13:9-10]
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree the unicorn bit is silly, the God of the Old Testament didn’t have much of a problem with rape. The Israelites–scratch that, the Israelite men–are specifically given rules on how they may force captive women to be their wives during their conquest of Canaan.
There are people who claim that is not rape, of course. Those people are either extremely naive, deliberately ignorant, or flat-out liars.