Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[Esquilax]

You're confusing less righteous with more moral.

I can see how, having drunk the kool aid to the point where slavery is okay with you, you'd proceed to think that death on such a grand scale is righteous. You're really doing wonders for your credibility amongst those of us who don't want to be genocide apologists.

It's also what many abolitionists had in mind. The question is, which side had better support? Considering the prohibition against kidnapping and selling into slavery, and the order to accept escaped slaves as free people, the Southern position as not Biblical. If they were following the law, they should have killed the slave traders, and then accepted their slaves as free people.

It's not really a matter of who has the most support. The fact is, in your supposedly perfectly written book of morality, which you yourself described as righteous earlier in your post, slave owners could find justification for their actions at all.

Why is it that on this one issue, that just so happens to be so very beneficial on the writers of the bible, does god suddenly become this compromising, powerless figure? At every other turn in the old testament he's slaying people left and right, but when it comes to writing the rules that might make it a little harder for a certain kind of person to conduct their business, suddenly he can't just give a commandment or anything. Why is that?

It's almost like you're being forced to give ad hoc rationalizations for totally immoral practices to keep your beliefs safe from interference!

I haven't argued that there was perfect protection for the slaves. There admittedly wasn't.

Why is a perfect being giving imperfect protection? Especially since he cares so much about the welfare of slaves, and wants the practice abolished, if he got his way? I mean, it's just those mean old hard hearted humans forcing him to compromise on his deeply held anti-slavery position, after all. Surely he could at least give the poor slaves a little more than "don't kill them right away."

That makes no sense, as it's considering damage to one's own slave, and considering the previous verse discussed.

Yeah, these clearly angry and violent people would never snap and harm their slaves in a fit of rage. There would be no need to safeguard the pawns of this practice, so vital, apparently, that even god himself couldn't outright abolish it, to the functioning of the society. Yes.

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

If you're going to be this obtuse, then fine. But I'll also add that there's a certain cultural indoctrination implicit in forcing your slaves to obey the same religious practices that command them to be slaves in the first place.

There isn't any reason for it.

That sound is the whistle of sarcasm, flying right over your head.

False dichotomy. Before, you mentioned regulation and change. Now, "there's slavery" is all there is to it.

I mentioned regulation and change in the context of how it's a weak excuse. The rest of my post was given over to explaining how slavery, in any context, at any time, is immoral.

You're making an appeal to emotion. You do understand that, right?

Some anvils need to be dropped, John. Especially since it's the year 2013, and you are making excuses for slave owners.

OK, I thought about it, and I don't see it as a good argument for slavery.

The next step, is justifying your interpretation over theirs. I've got no dog in this particular fight, because I think the entire book is crap. But how are we to tell who here is presenting the interpretation that conforms to not only what Paul was intending, but also god?

So that Philemon could do the right thing voluntarily, as Paul explains:

14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.

And if he didn't? What then? The guy owned slaves, it's fairly clear his moral compass is severely askew.

If someone today came to you and explained that they had been enslaved and had escaped, would you return them to their owner in the hopes they would set them free on their own? If not, why on earth are you accepting it from someone else?

[John V]

I can see how, having drunk the kool aid to the point where slavery is okay with you,

Poisoning the well.

you'd proceed to think that death on such a grand scale is righteous.

If death on a grand scale is deserved, then yes, it's righteous.

It's not really a matter of who has the most support.

Yes, that is the matter.

Why is it that on this one issue, that just so happens to be so very beneficial on the writers of the bible, does god suddenly become this compromising, powerless figure? At every other turn in the old testament he's slaying people left and right, but when it comes to writing the rules that might make it a little harder for a certain kind of person to conduct their business, suddenly he can't just give a commandment or anything. Why is that?

It isn't just on this one issue. I previously noted the compromise on divorce. That's how we got onto this line.

Why is a perfect being giving imperfect protection?

In part because of the hardness of their hearts, as already explained. Note also that, in the case of prisoners of war, enslavement could be a form of judgment. God used it on his own people, showing that he doesn't see it as a good thing to the enslaved.

Especially since he cares so much about the welfare of slaves, and wants the practice abolished, if he got his way? I mean, it's just those mean old hard hearted humans forcing him to compromise on his deeply held anti-slavery position, after all. Surely he could at least give the poor slaves a little more than "don't kill them right away."

He did give more than that. The Sabbath off. Freedom if permanent damage was inflicted. Prohibition against returning escaped slaves.

If you're going to be this obtuse, then fine. But I'll also add that there's a certain cultural indoctrination implicit in forcing your slaves to obey the same religious practices that command them to be slaves in the first place.

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

I mentioned regulation and change in the context of how it's a weak excuse.

LOL - it's always context with you atheists!

The rest of my post was given over to explaining how slavery, in any context, at any time, is immoral.

No, you haven't explained it at all. You've declared it repeatedly without explanation.

And if he didn't? What then? The guy owned slaves, it's fairly clear his moral compass is severely askew.

Paul had divine revelation.

If someone today came to you and explained that they had been enslaved and had escaped, would you return them to their owner in the hopes they would set them free on their own?

No. That's prohibited by the Bible, as already noted.

[Esquilax]

Poisoning the well.

I'm sorry that you feel like defending a god that okayed slavery makes you look bad. I think that too, but it's not poisoning the well if it's accurate.

If death on a grand scale is deserved, then yes, it's righteous.

I'm sure all those children that died deserved every gasping lungful of water, and yes I am appealing to emotion now.

Yes, that is the matter.

Maybe to you. I, for one, am not content with deciding which pile of shit is the most appealing. I'm happy to call them both shit and move on with my life in a setting with less shit in it.

It isn't just on this one issue. I previously noted the compromise on divorce. That's how we got onto this line.

So instead of answering the question you choose to multiply the problem by two. Thanks for doing my job for me.

In part because of the hardness of their hearts, as already explained.

And I've already shown how this argument doesn't match with god's character anywhere else in the bible. Avoiding the problem isn't going to make it disappear.

Note also that, in the case of prisoners of war, enslavement could be a form of judgment. God used it on his own people, showing that he doesn't see it as a good thing to the enslaved.

So, to god, two wrongs make a right? And again, what's wrong with just communicating the idea, rather than relaying it through further atrocities?

He did give more than that. The Sabbath off. Freedom if permanent damage was inflicted. Prohibition against returning escaped slaves.

So if I gave my slaves one day off a week, freedom if I damaged them, and let them go for good if they escaped, I'd be okay to you, morally speaking? If not, why on earth are you accepting this from your divine moral standard?

Oh, and are you now saying that Paul was doing the wrong thing by returning that slave?

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

Require? They don't. But to imply that no worship took place on the back of that admission would be horrendously dishonest of you, not to mention it would completely ignore my other notation.

LOL - it's always context with you atheists!

And it's always baseless, empty mockery with you theists. Got anything substantial to say?

No, you haven't explained it at all. You've declared it repeatedly without explanation.

Are you telling me you think slavery is moral?

Here's my reasoning though, since apparently you need someone to explain this to you: slavery is immoral because it deprives people of their basic freedoms and places them all upon the whims of slave owners, who have no particular compunction to treat their new free workforce fairly. It often leads to mistreatment, but even if it didn't, the removal of freedoms is an inherent immorality, given that it violates several principles of wellbeing.

And now, everyone has seen you attempt to obfuscate the fact that slavery is wrong, in order to win an argument on the internet. Well done.

Paul had divine revelation.

Possible response number one: cool, I can talk to myself too.

Possible response number two: if this is the case, why didn't god just give a divine revelation to everyone that slavery isn't okay, since they're apparently so compelling that one would go against the word of god upon receiving one?

No. That's prohibited by the Bible, as already noted.

What if I claimed to have divine revelation saying it's okay?

[Ryantology]

You misunderstand. The sentence is the same. It's more or less severe than the offense because the actual damage of the offense is variable.

In other words, deterrence is merely a justification for revenge.

The death penalty has likely not been a deterrent in modern societies because it typically only applies to murder.

What's your explanation for it not being a deterrent for lesser crimes in pre-modern societies?

First time I've seen someone deny the slippery slope fallacy by continuing to advocate it.

It is you who implies that lenient punishment is a slippery slope to higher crime. How, precisely, am I advocating it by disputing your fallacy?

First, there's no requirement for brainwashing on the Sabbath. Even if there were, why would that apply to slaves and servants, if this is really just a man-made law? It also applied to animals and foreigners, who were not part of any brainwashing.

So, what was the entirely non-religious purpose of not working, and why was it so important that death was the punishment for ignoring it?

It was the point in your last post.

Leading me to conclude that it sailed over your head.

I disagree that compromise necessarily implies a mistake.

It doesn't. Compromise implies a lack of ability. Mistakes are simply more proof that your god is not perfect.

Judgment isn't murder.

Scratch a Christian, find a man whose only problem with the Holocaust is the identity of the being who ordered it.

[John V]

I'm sorry that you feel like defending a god that okayed slavery makes you look bad. I think that too, but it's not poisoning the well if it's accurate.

Incorrect. It's poisoning the well if it's unrelated. This was classic poisoning the well.

I'm sure all those children that died deserved every gasping lungful of water, and yes I am appealing to emotion now.

Regarding children I subscribe to an age of accountability doctrine, and the children get heaven for eternity. Nice that you admit the appeal to emotion, though.

Maybe to you. I, for one, am not content with deciding which pile of shit is the most appealing. I'm happy to call them both shit and move on with my life in a setting with less shit in it.

Apparently not, as you're here debating it. I would hope that most people debating a Biblical doctrine would be concerned with the validity of differing interpretations. You're mostly just going on emotion.

So instead of answering the question you choose to multiply the problem by two. Thanks for doing my job for me.

It's not a problem for me. by god's standards, everyone deserves to die, as shown by the flood. If god decides to compromise and let some live for his purposes, and compromise in his dealings with them for his purposes, that's his decision.

And I've already shown how this argument doesn't match with god's character anywhere else in the bible. Avoiding the problem isn't going to make it disappear.

You haven't shown that at all. Pointing to a couple instances of judgment isn't showing that there's no compromise anywhere else in the Bible.

So, to god, two wrongs make a right?

Righteous judgment isn't a wrong. You just don't like it as most people don't like being judged. People aren't more moral, they're more lax, relaxing standards to a point they're collectively comfortable with.

And again, what's wrong with just communicating the idea, rather than relaying it through further atrocities?

He did send warnings, which were ignored by most.

So if I gave my slaves one day off a week, freedom if I damaged them, and let them go for good if they escaped, I'd be okay to you, morally speaking? If not, why on earth are you accepting this from your divine moral standard?

Again, it's not a standard, it's a compromise.

Oh, and are you now saying that Paul was doing the wrong thing by returning that slave?

No.

Require? They don't.

Thank you.

Are you telling me you think slavery is moral?

Here's my reasoning though, since apparently you need someone to explain this to you: slavery is immoral because it deprives people of their basic freedoms and places them all upon the whims of slave owners, who have no particular compunction to treat their new free workforce fairly. It often leads to mistreatment, but even if it didn't, the removal of freedoms is an inherent immorality, given that it violates several principles of wellbeing.

This just begs the question as to what freedoms are basic, and why? IOW it's just a more long-winded assertion without any real explanation.

And now, everyone has seen you attempt to obfuscate the fact that slavery is wrong, in order to win an argument on the internet. Well done.

No, I've attempted to show that the OT law allowing slavery was in part judgment, in part compromise, and that the Biblical ideal is that slaves be made free.

Possible response number one: cool, I can talk to myself too.

Possible response number two: if this is the case, why didn't god just give a divine revelation to everyone that slavery isn't okay, since they're apparently so compelling that one would go against the word of god upon receiving one?

God doesn't consider our earthly state to be terribly important compared to our eternal state. Don't you guys take the same position - that eternal suffering dwarfs anything experienced on earth?

What if I claimed to have divine revelation saying it's okay?

I'd ask you to prove it.

[Esquilax]

Incorrect. It's poisoning the well if it's unrelated. This was classic poisoning the well.

Maybe stop making excuses for slavery, then.

Regarding children I subscribe to an age of accountability doctrine, and the children get heaven for eternity. Nice that you admit the appeal to emotion, though.

I don't think anyone deserves to drown. Least of all people who couldn't possibly have deserved it, like you just admitted those kids didn't. Appeals to emotion aren't fallacious if they're backed up with an obvious point, like, say... killing people who don't deserve it is wrong!

Apparently not, as you're here debating it. I would hope that most people debating a Biblical doctrine would be concerned with the validity of differing interpretations. You're mostly just going on emotion.

Not everyone can have their cold blooded justification of slavery. Some of us actually have hearts, and aren't willing to let them bend around every perverse sentence of a holy book.

And I'm not going on emotion, unless you're actually admitting that there's no logical or moral basis for not liking slavery?

It's not a problem for me. by god's standards, everyone deserves to die, as shown by the flood. If god decides to compromise and let some live for his purposes, and compromise in his dealings with them for his purposes, that's his decision.

And there it is, the core of your entire argument: god did it, so I'm fine with it. Congratulations, you've finally been honest. Too bad that in doing so you've just displayed the depths of your thoughtless immorality.

Do you think the argument you're defending is making you come across as the moral one, here?

Righteous judgment isn't a wrong. You just don't like it as most people don't like being judged. People aren't more moral, they're more lax, relaxing standards to a point they're collectively comfortable with.

Anyone else buying this? Anyone converted yet?

Yeah, I thought so.

Again, it's not a standard, it's a compromise.

Which makes it immoral, because objective morals can't be altered, it's sort of the point of them.

This just begs the question as to what freedoms are basic, and why? IOW it's just a more long-winded assertion without any real explanation.

Look, I'm pretty much done here. It's two in the morning here, and I honestly don't have the energy to waste on a person whose entire argument is just cover over the basic idea that he's fine with what's in the bible because it's okay with god. It's an unassailable, illogical and entirely useless premise to build an argument around, but as usual, it's the theist position. You're going to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it, and I'm done.

I'm not going to sit here and be lectured about what's moral or not by someone who's okay with slavery so long as someone else told him it was okay, however. Peace out; maybe you'll come back with something slightly more complex in future, but I kind of doubt it.

[Jackalope]

The same god who struck Lot's wife down for looking back when it contravened his commands? The same god that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for immorality

Let's not forget that god supposedly spared Lot, because Lot was the one righteous man in the city. Oh, yeah he spared his wife (temporarily) and his daughters - those same daughters that the righteous Lot offered up to an unruly mob to be gang raped - the same daughters that the righteous Lot impregnated in a drunken stupor.

Apparently god values drunken assholes.

[John V]

Maybe stop making excuses for slavery, then.

Or you could refrain from bringing in slavery to unrelated topics.

I don't think anyone deserves to drown.

What about slavers? What do they deserve?

Least of all people who couldn't possibly have deserved it, like you just admitted those kids didn't. Appeals to emotion aren't fallacious if they're backed up with an obvious point, like, say... killing people who don't deserve it is wrong!

The adults deserve it, for the children it's nothing compered to eternal happiness.

And I'm not going on emotion, unless you're actually admitting that there's no logical or moral basis for not liking slavery?

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof. Is there any underhanded debate technique that you don't use?

Do you think the argument you're defending is making you come across as the moral one, here?

Not at all. People hate being judged. The difference between me and you is that I've looked at myself and found myself guilty. You justify yourself, primarily by lowering standards to a point you can live with.

Now, can you explain why slavery is wrong? I'm not saying it isn't, just wondering what your rationale is.

[Silver]

If a woman's hands are cut off, how is she properly going to function in the kitchen? I guess the primitive neanderthalls did not think that one out properly. Now she has to be stoned to death because she cannot perform her duties.

[ronedee]

The same god who struck Lot's wife down for looking back when it contravened his commands? The same god that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for immorality

Let's not forget that god supposedly spared Lot, because Lot was the one righteous man in the city. Oh, yeah he spared his wife (temporarily) and his daughters - those same daughters that the righteous Lot offered up to an unruly mob to be gang raped - the same daughters that the righteous Lot impregnated in a drunken stupor.

Apparently god values drunken assholes.

We're ALL drunken assholes in God's sight! Some worse than others.

Romans 3
"As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”