> What I found interesting is how many parts modern Christians habitually ignore, either because they'd be arrested if they'd follow them, or because those part

> What I found interesting is how many parts modern Christians habitually ignore, either because they'd be arrested if they'd follow them, or because those parts don't fit in with their personal beliefs. Of course, the entire corpus of text has also seen numerous redactions, in an effort to streamline it and make it more coherent (with mixed results). The parts you describe are a history book. They are not meant to be normative to someone living in a modern Western Democratic context. They are background to explain a people, a time, and a discontinued form of government. Other more pertinent parts of the Bible (see the prophets or the epistles referring to The Law) make sense with that background available. I also suspect there's some deeper truth buried in those laws about what happens if a community stays distinct, and how that can be enacted (clothing, food, calendar, etc.). And there's certainly a lot of history of the Hebrew people to describe what happens when distinction and noteriety happens, even through long periods of diaspora. Finally, it's worth having some historical context. Considering the Israelites of the time to be unconscionable doesn't take into account what the typical society looked like in that time and place.