"Treat others with fairness" is completely different than "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
How exactly ?
Because one is a direct teaching of Jesus that takes the Old Testament ("the Law and the Prophets") into account. The other is a vague sentiment that can mean whatever a person wants it to mean based on their definition of "fairness."
The difference is that you pick and choose but you don't know why. You didn't answer the question:
Do you love your neighbor as yourself? If so, why do you reject the other commands like wearing fabrics of multiple materials?
It's strange that you would presume to know the contents of my mind.
I treat my neighbor like I treat all humans, not necessarily with "love" but with fairness and respect.
I don't necessarily know the contents of your mind. But if you tell me you adhere to the golden rule, and that you seek to treat all humans with fairness and respect, that tells me that you are picking and choosing values from the Bible while rejecting others like Leviticus 24:17, “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." So to rephrase the question: If you are trying to use the teaching of Jesus to treat your neighbor as yourself which is drawn from the Old Testament, why do you reject the teaching of Leviticus 24:17?
You know why you pick and choose ?
Can you perhaps link to some source that supports your cherry-picking ?
I've quite honestly been trying to find a coherent moral theory of the old testament ever since I was a small child (when my questions were ignored).
There are a great number of Christians who have put little thought into what the Old Testament Law means for Christians today. I will answer the question but I would first like to hear your answer to my previous question: If you are trying to use the teaching of Jesus to treat your neighbor as yourself which is drawn from the Old Testament, why do you reject the teaching of Leviticus 24:17?
Would you say that deportation = murder ?
Depending on how you define deportation, no.
Let's say some people show up at the border of your country and say that they are fleeing for their very lives.
You ask them to present evidence, and they only have eye-witness-testimony (which is considered solid-gold in a civil court).
You tell them they need better evidence, like corroborating testimony and or photographs or video or something.
They don't have any evidence other than their own eyes and ears.
So you reject their application and send them back to where they came from.
AND THEN THEY ARE MUTILATED AND OR KILLED.
It almost seems like "murder" to me.
Did god design and program the reproductive and other survival instincts of humans and animals ?
That depends on what you mean. Are you asking if God created humans and animals as automatons?
Forget about god for a second.
Would you blame me if something I made catastrophically malfunctioned ?
That depends on what you made. Did you make a moral agent or an automaton? If you made an pre-programmed automaton with no moral agency that only did what you programmed it to do, then I would blame you. If you made a moral agent that willfully violated its intended purpose, and that violations caused a catastrophic malfunction, then I would blame the creation.
But you still haven't answered the question: Did God create humans as automatons?