So now you're an expert on the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant and the ancient Israelites. Nice to meet you Rabbi TracerBullet... lol.
Obviously, the Old Covenant was for a specific primitive population during a specific period of human history as a stepping stone toward something far greater the fact which you altogether omitted.
Your blatant omission that that it was superseded by a New Covenant God established in Jesus Christ toward reconciliation of all humanity is nonexistent as is any indication to put it into perspective within primitive human history. But then you're attempting to paint the God of the Bible as morally blighted which reveals both your colossal ignorance and purpose for being here.
According to Paul the "Law" was added because of "transgressions" to human history. As the NEB paraphrase suggests, God’s Law was used to "make wrongdoing a legal offense." In other words, it was given to reveal humanity's moral bankruptcy (and the seriousness therein) to prepare them for God's sweeping prophetic promise and New Covenant which was simultaneously given with the law (a point you deliberately omitted).
Even the way in which you mock the specific components of the Mosaic Law reveal you have no clue what was being communicated. Even the miscellaneous laws served a purpose. Take the "mixed fabric," as you call it, which is in reality stated in Leviticus 19:19 as follows, "...do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Fabric mixtures in clothing were considered to be reserved for sacred use. Parallel passages make it clear these were for the tabernacle and in priest's outer garments reserved for sacred use and not common use. But you never addressed that nor why they were reserved for that purpose.
Now I'm no promoter of slavery and neither is the God of the Bible. He made allowance for divorce and slavery because the hardness of the heart of man who was exercising freewill to engage in the practice so He set some ground rules for it. First of all, you have grossly misrepresented what "slavery" in ancient Israel was by omission. Except for slaves taken in battle with pagan nations, Jewish slavery was almost always voluntary and usually initiated as a remedy for poverty. Were this situation like modern western slavery, we could justifiably condemn the practice but the reality is that this was of great benefit to the poor of the era.
Slavery contracts in ancient Israel emphasized that the slave agreed to work in exchange for economic security and personal protection. While modern western slaves were forbidden to own property of any kind, Hebrew slaves could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their own freedom. Yes, they were free to moonlight and buy out the contract they'd made, to own property, pay betrothal monies, and pay civic fines like any freeman. Slaves could appear in court as
witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants on behalf of their friends and they could pay a "quitrent" to their owner if they needed time off to start a family, etc...
Furthermore, the Old Testament forbids the cruel treatment of slaves practiced by the pagan nations surrounding ancient Israel while affording them legal protections AND they were all set free every Jubilee with their entire debt remitted giving them a clean start! You completely omitted that important point, of course. Only in Israel, under the Mosaic Law, did that occur in the ancient world.
And yes God set standards as to who could be a priest and what condition sacrifices should be presented as sin offerings but you completely failed to point out the disabled approaching Jesus in the temple (21:14). Jewish teachers did not require blind or lame people to make the journey to the temple (m. Hagiga 1:1), and at least some traditions excluded them from the temple (2 Sam 5:8 LXX) but Jesus was reforming the overreach of the religiosity and the way they conducted temple affairs.
The Jewish Sibylline Oracle 2:73 contains the prohibition me arsenokoitein which translates as "do not practice homosexuality" with the Levitical associations of arsenokoitēs confirming the context. Biblical scholars have already weighed in:
Does the Greek word arsenokoitēs refer to homosexuals? | Christian Studies You apparently didn't get the memo and are so simply making a false assertion (something you do an awful lot of).
Paul isn't difficult to understand if you have a good grasp of the languages he wrote in, history and the cultures of the period, and systematic understanding of ancient texts and the Bible as a whole. 2 Peter 3:15-17 was referring to apostates which had begun to syncrete Christianity with paganism to their spiritual ruin not what you are asserting.
Which isn't surprising given your next false assertion that Paul is condoning homosexuality as a natural. Paul was an orthodox Jewish Rabbi who well understood Leviticus 18:22 proscribing the act of a male lying with another male as an "abomination" or "detestable thing" with the Hebrew word coming from the root "to abhor" and the image emphasizing both ritually and ethically God’s call to reject such behaviors.
Paul and other early Christian writers inherited the strong critique of homosexuality common in Hellenistic Judaism (something you appear to be clueless about). Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus stressed the homosexual aspect of the Sodomites’ gang rape (Gen 19:5) and, especially under Stoic influence, condemned same-sex intercourse as contrary to nature.
The words most frequently translated ‘nature’, ‘natural’, are physis and physikos. The precise meaning of physis, physikos, is often determined by that with which physis is contrasted. Thus it may be regarded as characteristic of brute beasts as opposed to humanity (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10) or to be contrasted with that which is commonly but falsely believed (Gal. 4:8, Moffatt—‘gods who are really’, physei, ‘no gods at all’; cf. 1 Cor. 8:5) but of special importance are the Pauline uses of physis in contrast with the perversions of Gentile society and the free grace of God in Christ and its consequences in man’s life.
The former use is found in Rom. 1:26–27 in which sexual perversion is there viewed as a departure from the norm recognized by ‘natural’ man which shows how badly you've misrepresented Greek word usage in Pauline letters here today.
.