Please don't downvote just because you disagree. Have a discussion if you're comfortable with your beliefs. It would do more good for all involved.
If I tell you "I believe in the healing power of crystals and wear them around my neck and it has helped me come to a certain peace with my mortality", you would either say "well, good for you if that helps your mental state cope with things" or "you're fucking nuts". Neither avenue is going to progress, inform, or help anyone.
But it is pointless for me to even point this out to you so I'll stop here.
I don't see why that's a meaningful comparison. I'm inclined to say, so what?
Key difference is that rational people in 2014 aren't claiming that Zeus may strike you down with a lightning bolt or thinking that Gilgamesh was divinely inspired.
The old testament is very into offspring and private property
Really? It just seems like a mish-mash of things nobody today would find acceptable. It advocates slavery in many places. Example:
http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-8.htm
http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-9.htm
Giving up your virgin daughters for men to do as they want:
http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-8.htm
And then there's this:
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-19.htm
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm
There is some wacky stuff in The Holy Bible. The New Testament isn't much better. It's a little better. But not much.
The Bible doesn't "advocate" anything by those verses. Surely you wouldn't read a historical account of World War II and be so naive as to say that the book is "advocating" genocide, would you? That would be totally irrational.
To say that God "advocated" mankind's actions because they are recorded in the Old Testament is completely, utterly false and naive. It's like saying two parents "advocate" drug use when they recount the story of their child's drug addiction and how they attempted to bring their child back to being clean. The parents might even have a part in their story where they demanded their child keep the drug habit to the basement, or maybe even offered clean needles in lieu of the potentially infected ones off the street. But to say they "advocated" for that behavior? Hogwash!
No, the motive you are looking for is "merciful allowance, with a loving hope for restoration."
This is why it is pointless to discuss anything with zealots. Your brains turn off for this topic.
Hmm, what does Genesis 16:10 say, the verse that immediately follows that command? Do you read all your books in such a way that each sentence cannot be linked to the previous or following sentences?
Attempting to restrain or set boundaries (i.e. laws and rules) around man's sinful habits does not mean God was advocating for sin -- in the same way that a parent attempting to set some ground rules around their child's drug habit does not mean they are advocating the drug habit.
Today I usually just avoid religious conversations because most people are not aware that I have been there and done that, and I often know more about their religion than they do. If religion makes someone feel good, great. For me personally, the most vocally religious people I have met have always selfish people who hide behind the veil of Jesus.
But there are Christians out there who know what they're talking about, who know more about their religion than the enlightened ex-Christians and educated atheists do.
You've probably never met one. Most people haven't. Because they don't like to argue or confront people. And they don't force their views down people's throats. Most of the time, they just sit there quietly and pray for those non-believers who other Christians would insult or argue with. They usually only bring it up when they're asked to give account for the reason they have hope, and they do it with gentleness and respect.