Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate… My perspective is perhaps clouded by the f

Does it? The point about "Picking and choosing" seems to be in regard to what to do/follow. How does that translate… My perspective is perhaps clouded by the fact that there are, in my view, two equally morally repugnant verses that were referenced. That you chose to comment on the one and not the other was suggestive to me. I don’t know you so I can’t possibly know what you really believe. I have to get clues by what is said and unsaid. I suspect, but don’t know, that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”. …perhaps what once was immoral had unstated conditions that no longer became relevant e.g. the very context I suggest. My morality is so screwed up and deranged that I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist. I’m an atheist so this probably explains why I can’t understand the reason for putting this verse in the Bible to begin with. Let me be specific and somewhat mocking. At one point in time God thought it was moral to force some rape victims to marry their rapist but no longer thinks this is the case. Somewhere along the line, around the time of widespread government support services in some countries, He decided it’s no longer ok. God sounds incompetent. Personally, I would have written something like, Society must care for rape victims for as long as they live. And not force them to marry their rapist or to be viewed as damaged goods or in any other sort of asinine way. This is the gist of what I’d have written. Don’t nitpick it though since this is much better than what the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe could come up with.